NIHAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. P. Pandey This is a reference, dated 1-2-1996, made by the learned Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra in respect of the Revision Petition No. 164/94 Nihal Singh v. U. P. State, arising out of the judgment and order, dated 24-8-1994, passed by the learned trial Court, in proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), recommending that the revision petition may be allowed, impugned order set aside and the case remanded to the learned trial Court for decision afresh, on merits, according to law, in the light of the observations, made by him in his referring order.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts, giving rise to the instant reference are that on the report of the Tehsildar, concerned, suo-moto, proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act were initiated against the revisionist, Nihal Singh etc. . None responded before the learned trial Court, despite due notice and repeated calls and therefore, the case proceeded ex-parte, against them. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite formalities, vide its order, dated 24-8-1994, cancelled the lease, in question, vesting the land, in dispute, in the Gaon Sabha, concerned and therefore, it is against this order that the revisionist went up in revision before the learned Additional Commissioner, who has made this reference with his aforesaid recommendation.

(3.) IN view of the above, the reference is, accordingly, accepted, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set-aside and the case is hereby remanded to the learned Collector, concerned for decision of the same afresh on merits, according to law, within three months from the date, fixed before him, after affording due and reasonable opportunity of being heard and adducing evidence, if any, to the parties, concerned, in the light of the observations, made by the learned Additional Commissioner in his referring order. Let records be returned forthwith to the Courts, concerned. Parties to appear before the Court concerned on 5-12-2006. Revision allowed. .