CHHIDDU KHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), preferred against the judgment and order, dated 25-2- 2000, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Chitrakootdham Division, Banda on the restoration application moved in revision petition No. 20/13 of 1998-99/Hamirpur, allowing the same and setting aside the judgment and order, dated 10-6-1998, passed by the learned trial Court, in proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act, and maintaining the leases granted in favour of the lessees.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts, giving rise to the instant revision petition are that on the application of the revisionist, Chhiddu Khan, proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act were initiated against the lessees, concerned for cancellation of the allotments, made in their favour, on the ground of irregular allotment. None responded before the learned trial Court despite repeated calls and therefore, it after hearing the arguments, advanced on behalf of the State only, cancelled the leases, in question, vide its order, dated 10-6-1998. Allotees, concerned, went up in the revision before the learned Additional Commissioner who, vide his order, dated 11-1-1999, dismissed the same and on a restoration application, moved by the allottees, concerned, he allowed the revision petition, set-aside the order, dated 10-6-1998 passed by the learned trial Court and maintained the leases, in question, vide his judgment and order, dated 25-2-2000 and therefore, it is against this order that the instant revision petition has been preferred by Chhiddu Khan before the Board.

(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the arguments advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also scanned the relevant records on file. As a matter of fact, the learned trial Court has cancelled the leases, in question only after hearing the arguments, advanced on behalf of the State and not the allotees, concerned, as has been observed by it that none respondent despite the repeated calls. Astonishingly enough, it did not care even to look into the service of notice etc. upon the parties concerned. On the other hand, vide his order dated 11-1-1999, the learned Additional Commissioner dismissed the revision petition but on the restoration application, when full facts that at the time of the allotment, the same was regular and valid, as has already been observed by the learned trial Court in its own order, came to his notice, he, after hearing both the parties, set aside the orders, dated 11-1-1999 as well as 10-6-1998 and allowed the revision petition, maintaining the leases in question. I, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as well as the evidence, on record, do not find any reason, which may compel me to interfere with the impugned order order and therefore, the contentions of the learned Counsel for the revisionist, who has bitterly failed to substantiate his claim, are father untenable for the same reason. Veracity of the leases is always judged at the time of its allotment and not later on which was, admittedly, regular and valid in all respect and therefore, this revision petitioner having no force, very richly deserves dismissal, outright.