KUNWAR LAL Vs. L.M.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by learned Additional Commissioner, Kanpur in a proceeding under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act whereby he has recommended that the revision be allowed, order dated 2-3-95 passed by trial Court be set aside and the case be remanded back to it for fresh decision after considering the validity of the lease in accordance with law.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that proceedings under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act were initiated on the application of revisionist against the allottees opposite-parties whereby he has alleged that he is in possession over plot No. 46 area 0.820 hectare for the last 10 years and is cultivatng the same. The revisionist also alleged that he is landless agricultural labourer and is in possession from before 30-6-1985 hence under Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act he has become owner of the land in dispute and inspite of that the land in dispute has illegally and without following the proper procedure been allotted to the opposite-parties. No Munadi or agenda was held and list of eligible persons was also not prepared by the Land Management Committee. The allottees also do not come in the category of eligible persons. On the basis of the allegations made by the revisionist in the application for cancellation, a report was called for from the tehsil which was submitted on 16-6-94. On 27-7-94 notices were issued to the opposite-parties and they appeared on 18-8-94 in the Court and inspite of being afforded proper time they did not file any objection on hence on 15-2-95 in the absence of opposite-parties an order to proceed ex parte was passed. The opposite-parties moved a restoration application which was allowed on 28-2-95 and the order dated 15-2-95 for proceeding ex parte was recalled. On 1-3-95 opposite-parties filed objection whereby it was alleged that the allotment was made in the year 1976 after following proper procedure for allotment and on the basis of allotment their names have been entered in the revenue papers and hence they are in possession over the land in dispute. The trial Court after evaluating the material on record dismissed the application for cancellation vide its order dated 2-3-95. Aggrieved by this order, a revision was preferred before the learned Additional Commissioner, Kanpur who was made the aforesaid reference.

(3.) THE application moved for cancellation after expiry of limitation is provided under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Board of Revenue has held in 1994 RD page 540 (Virendra Singh v. State of U.P.) that the limitation will start from the date of knowledge. Hence, the recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner is accepted and the case is remanded back to the learned trial Court to look into the matter on the basis of rules and procedure provided under the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and also after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Reference accepted.