PRABHU DAYAL (DEAD) THOUGH LRS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference, dated 25-9-1993, remanded by Division Bench made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi in respect of revision petition No. 147/342 of 1991-92 Lalitpur, arising out o the judgment and order, dated 15-7-1992, passed by the learned trial Court, in proceedings under Section 198(4) of the UPZA & LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), recommending that the revision petition be allowed, the impugned order dated 15-7-1992 be setting aside and the Patta in question granted in favour of the revisionist, may be maintained.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts, giving rise to the instant reference are that on the tehsil report, suo-moto proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act for cancellation of the lease, in question were initiated against the revisionist on the ground or irregular allotment. On notice, the allottee, concerned, contested the proceedings, denying the allegations. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite formalities, cancelled the lease, in question vide its order dated 15- 7-1992, vesting the land, in dispute in the Gaon Sabha, concerned and therefore, the allottee, concerned went up in revision before the learned Additional Commissioner who has made this reference to the Board with his aforesaid recommendation.

(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the arguments advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned DGC (R) and have also scanned the record on file. As a matter of fact, the allotment, in question, was made in the year 1961 and at that time, the same could be made to 'any other person' who is landless agricultural labourer. The claim of the allottee, concerned is supported by the statement of the lekhpal, concerned, as it has also come on the record that there had been no landless agricultural labourer in the village Gadyana and 395 acres of land was still lying vacant in that village and therefore, it cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be said that the allotment in question, has been made, at the cost of other landless agricultural labourers, belonging to that village. The revisionist had also no land in his own name in the village Barkhiriya and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as well as evidence on record, am fully convinced with the view, expressed by the learned Additional Commissioner and as such, the recommendation, made by him very richly deserves acceptance, in toto.