MEWA LAL Vs. SRI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order of Additional Commissioner, Allahabaad dated 8-10-2004 passed in revision No. 1023 of 2004.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsels for both the parties. The counsel for the revisionist argued that they have moved an application under Section 15-A of U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952 for cancellation of lease granted in favour of the opposite party and the Additional Collector has admitted the suit and fixed date for spot inspections, vide the order dated 19-6-2004. Against which a revision was filed before the Additional Commissioner under Section 333 Z.A. which has been allowed by the Additional Commissioner on 8-10-2004. Against this order of Addl. Commissioner this instant revision has been filed. He further argued that since the case was filed under Section 15-A of U.P., Bhudan Yagna Act, 1952, revision does not lie under Section 333 of ZA Act and hence the order of Additional Commissioner is illegal and without jurisdiction.

(3.) I have gone through the file carefully. It is clear that the revisionist filed a suit under Section 15-A of U.P. Bhudan Yagna Act, 1952, and the trial Court has only admitted the suit and has fixed the date for spot inspection, meaning thereby the trial Court has not decided the suit finally. Hence I am of the view that the revision filed against the interlocutory order of the trial Court was not maintainable. Accordingly in my view there is force in the instant revision, so the revision is allowed the impugned order dated 8-10-2004 is set aside. Since the Additional Collector has no jurisdiction as is evident from 2003 (95) RD, 304, the case shall be decided by the Collector after hearing both the parties. The parties shall be present in the Court of Collector, Allahabad on 30-6-2005. Let this Court's file be consigned to record room. Revision allowed.