PYARELAL Vs. BALA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. P. Pandey This is a review petition under Order XLVII, Rule 1 read with Section 151, CPC preferred by Bala Prasad against the judgment and order dated 30-8-1995, passed by this Court in Reference No. 149 of 1993- 94/lalitpur, accepting the reference, allowing the revision petition and setting aside the order, dated 26- 9-1989, passed by the learned Trial Court in a case under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the relevant papers, on file. Assailing the impugned order, the bone of contentions of the learned Counsel for the review petitioner inter alia, in a nut shell, are, firstly, that since at the time of arguments of the reference, in question, it was contended that the complainant was not an 'aggrieved person', as neither he was directly affected by the lease, in question, nor was he eligible for such allotment, had the lease in question, been not granted in favour of the allottee, concerned, his complaint was not maintainable, in law, as per the established principle of law and since this material aspect of the case has escaped notice of this Court, an error, apparent on the face of the record, has crept in the impugned order, which very richly deserves to be reviewed and recalled in the interest of justice. In support, reliance has been placed on the case laws, reported in 1992 RD 51 (H) (FB), 1984 RD 408, 1961 ALJ 473, 1968 AWR 844, 2006 RD 78, 1985 RD 46 (DB ). The learned Counsel for the opposite party, in reply, urged that since no objection to the recommendation, made by the learned Additional Commissioner was filed by the allottee, concerned, this Court was perfectly justified in accepting the same and therefore, this review petition, having no force, very richly deserves dismissal, outright. 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 papers as well as the impugned order, on record. A bare perusal of the same clearly reveals that the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is rather correct. The issue of the complainant, being not an 'aggrieved person', in fact, escaped the notice of this Court, which clearly amounts to an error, apparent on the face of the record and therefore, I, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, am of the considered view that this review petition very richly deserves to be allowed, as per the established principle of law and as such, this review petition is accordingly, allowed and the impugned order passed by this Court is hereby, recalled. 4. I have also heard the learned Counsel for the parties on the merits of the case and have also scanned the record on file. As a matter of fact, Pyare Lal, the complainant was a resident of the village, concerned, who has lodged the complaint, praying for the cancellation of the lease, in question, on the ground of irregular allotment, without disclosing as to whether or not he was an 'aggrieved person'. In the case law, reported in 1992 RD 51 (H) (FB), the Full Bench has dealt with the matter, in question, in detail and has come to the conclusion as follows : In his complaint, Pyare Lal has nowhere alleged that he is either directly affected by the allotment, in question, or had the same been not made in favour of the allottee, concerned, he would have been a better preferential claimant for the grant of the same and therefore, as per the established principle of law, he cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be deemed to be an 'aggrieved person' entitled to lodge a complaint in this respect and therefore, I, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, am of the considered opinion that his complaint is not maintainable in law, which very richly deserves rejection outright. The learned Trial Court has rather very rightly rejected the same, though on merits of the case. I do notice that this material aspect of the matter, in question that the complainant was not an 'aggrieved person', anyhow escaped the notice of the learned Additional Commissioner, who has rather swayed away on flimsy grounds and therefore, I, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as well as the evidence, on record, am of the view that his recommendation is not sustainable in law, which very richly deserves rejection, outright. 5. In view of the above, the reference is accordingly, rejected, the revision petition is dismissed and the complaint made by Pyare Lal, being not maintainable, in law, is hereby rejected. Let records be returned forthwith to the Courts concerned. .