PRABHA SHANKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application dated 11.8.1997 as to the vacation of the stay order, dated 6.8.1997 and another application dated 12.8.1997 as to the non-maintainability of the revision have been moved on behalf of the opposite parties.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the relevant papers on file on the point of maintainability of the instant revision.

(3.) The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party contended that this revision is not maintainable at all as the trial court has not decided any suit or proceedings, that the learned Additional Commissioner has rightly dismissed the first revision as not maintainable, that in order to procrastinate and delay the pending proceedings under Sec. 167 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act before the trial court the revisionist filed first revision before the learned Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi and after dismissal of the same the second revision has been filed before this court, that the proceedings under Sec. 167 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act were pending before the trial court, that the objection as to the jurisdiction was filed before the trial court that the ADM is not competent to decide the matter under Sec. 167 of U.P.Z.A,. and L.R. Act, that, with the result of the amendment of Sections 166 and 167 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, by means of Act No. 20 of 1982, the Additional Collector is fully authorised to decide the aforesaid matter, that the instant revision has no legs to stand as such, the same is liable to the dismissed as not maintainable. In support of his contention he has cited the case law reported in 1993 RJ 69 (HC). In reply, the learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revision is quite maintainable and there is no any justification to dismiss the same as not maintainable. In support of his contentions he cited the case law, reported in 1990 RD 31.