RAMESHWAR DAYAL Vs. KOMAL DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAMESHWAR Dayal has preferred this revision under Section 333 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act against the judgment dated 15-10-1996 passed by Additional Commissioner, (Administration) Kanpur Division, in a case under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the opposite party argued that the land in question which has been allotted to the opposite party is recorded as Navin Parti in the name of Gaon Sabha. Consolidation is over and the village has been de-notified under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H. Act; hence the contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is untenable because after the consolidation is over this point cannot be considered under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. If at all the revisionist is aggrieved the best course for him is to prefer a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act.