SIDHEY Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ravindra Misra holding brief of Sri Ajit Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manoj Rajvanshi appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner was allotted land in dispute on lease by the Land Management Committee vide resolution dated 24.7.1977 and the same was duly approved by the Sub Divisional Officer on 22.7.1978. The same land was again allotted by the Land Management Committee vide resolution dated 22.5.1981 in favour of contesting respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner filed an application under Sec. 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act (for short 'the Act') for cancellation of lease executed in favour 3f contesting respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on he ground that this very land was allotted to him vide resolution dated 24.7.1977 and he is in possession, however, on account of mistake Amaldaramad could not be made in the revenue records and wrongly treated it to be vacant, the Land Management Committee has allotted the same. On the said application, report was called for from Pargana Adhikari. After making inquiry, a report was submitted to the effect that the land in dispute was allotted to the petitioner vide resolution dated 24.7.1977 and the same has not yet been cancelled. It was also mentioned in the report that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were not agricultural labourer and hence was not entitled for allotment. The Trial Court summoned the record of the allotment proceedings and after perusing the same recorded a finding that the petitioner was a landless agricultural labourer and was allotted land vide resolution dated 24.7.1977 to which was duly approved on 22.7.1978. The Trial Curt also found that proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and prescribed procedure and there is no illegality in the same. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, he allowed the application filed by the petitioner and cancelled the patta in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on the ground that on the date of allotment made in favour the land was validly allotted to the petitioner and was not available for allotment. Contesting respondents went up in -revision which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut vide order dated 2.3.1987. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue which was allowed vide order dated 31.7.1989. Against which, the petitioner preferred a review petition which was dismissed on 9.4.1990. Aggrieved by the said two orders, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) It has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Board of Revenue allowed the revision on irrelevant consideration. It has further been urged that the finding recorded by the Board of Revenue that the petitioner did not produce any evidence in support of his case and even the alleged patta was not produced is based on no evidence at all inasmuch the original record was summoned and perused by the Trial Court. It has next been contended that the revision has wrongly and illegally been allowed by the Board of Revenue on the ground that the affidavit filed by the contesting respondents stating that the petitioner though was allotted land but he has refused to accept the patta was unrebutted.