BANSHI Vs. RAM KRIPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference dated 16-12-1996 made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi in respect of the Revision Petition No. 166/220 of 1992/Banda, Banshi v. Ram Kripal etc., arising out of the judgment and order, dated 31-1-1992, passed by the learned trial Court, in proceedings under Section 198(4) of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), recommending that the impugned order be set aside and the case be remanded to the learned trial Court for decision, afresh, on merits, according to law, in the light of the observations, made in his referring order.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts, giving rise to the instant reference are that on the application of the revisionist, proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act were initiated against the opposite party, Ram Kripal for cancellation of the allotment, in question, on the ground of irregular allotment. On notice, the allottee concerned contested the proceedings, denying the allegations and inter alia pleading that the allotment in question, has been made validly. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite formalities, rejected the application of the revisionist, vide its order, dated 31-1-1992 and therefore, it is against this order that the complainant 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 submissions made before me by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also scanned the relevant record on file. As a matter of fact, the revisionist moved an application dated 21-9-1989, requesting for an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his claim which was, in fact, rejected by the learned trial Court, vide its order dated 22-9-1989. It clearly goes to show that due and reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence has been denied to him by the learned trial Court and therefore, in view of the settled principle of law that none should be condemned unheard, the view of the learned Additional Commissioner, being logical in correct perspective of law, is perfectly justified in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. I entirely agree with the observations, made by him, in his referring order and therefore, am of the considered opinion that his recommendation very richly deserves acceptance, in toto.