LALJI Vs. BALADEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Baladeen and others made an application dated 31-7-1992 to Collector Allahabad impleading Lal ji and eleven others as opposite parties seeking cancellation of leases given to the latter in plots 755 and 746/1 situate in village Sakramau, Soraon, Allahabad mainly on two grounds (1) the plots in question are land of public utility, (2) that the allottees are not eligible persons. It appears that this application was presented to Chief Revenue Officer Allahabad instead on 6-8-1992. Records further show that several dated were fixed though, yet orders on admission have not been passed. The trial Court however on 11-8-1992 passed an order on another application of the applicants dated 31-7-1992 seeking status quo on the spot. The Chief Revenue Officer gave two injunctions in this order. One is that nature of the land shall not be changed. And the second is that allotment order shall not be given effect to. The reason for this, according to him in the said order is that the plots in question are lands of public utility when the matter came up before the Additional Commissioner, he agreed with the above order and dismissed the revision. Consequently Lal ji and others have filed a second revision in the Board.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsels and have perused the records.

(3.) The first point of dispute between the parties relates to maintain-ability of this revision. The counsel for the revisionist has submitted that she orders of the courts below against which this revision has been preferred are not interlocutory in nature. These orders have virtually clinched the lis which should have been decided after taking evidence of parties. The counsel for the respondents has on the other hand opposed and has claimed that the said orders are interlocutory. He has cited 1993 RD p. 247 in support of his contention. I find that the courts below have held in the impugned orders that the land in dispute is a land of public utility. Cancellation of the leases have, also been sought among others, on this ground also. I therefore quite agree with Sri S. C. Verma Advocate, appearing for the revisionists that one of the disputes between the parties has been decided by the courts below without giving opportunity to the parties to put in evidence in support of their respective claim. I have read the law as interpreted in 1993 RD p. 247, The facts of the case of this ruling are different. So it will not apply to this case. In my assessment there is an element of finality in the impugned orders. Consequently this revision is maintainable,