TEJ SINGH Vs. L. M. C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra in revision No. 94 of 82-83 under Sec. 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A and L.R Act. This revision was preferred by Sri Tej Singh against the order dated 11-6-81 passed by the Additional Collector, Etah in case No. 181 under Sec. 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.

(2.) Briefly speaking the facts of the case are proceedings under Sec. 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act were initiated on the complaint of Sri Ram Bharose against the allotment of Gaon Samaj land made in favour of 57 persons of the village and the Additional Collector under his order dated 16-2-81 held that the leases were executed on the basis of the meetings of the L.M.C. held on 23-10-73 and 7-12-75 and the learned Additional Collector cancelled the allotment made in the meetings of 23-9-73 and 23-10-73 and also the allotment made in favour of Nekse and Ulfat Singh in the meeting of 7-12-75. While passing the order of cancellation of allotment the learned Additional Collector also observed that in respect of the allotment made in favour of the revisionist and several others, no notice had been issued as required under law and hence no orders could be passed without giving them required notices. Notices were accordingly issued to the revisionist and others Smt. Rambeli, Sarvashri Lala Ram, Tej Singh, Raghunath, Raja Ram Ramnath Singh, Subedar, Hari Ram, Gulab and Nabi Jan but in spite of notices no body appeared to oppose and the learned Additional Collector therefore passed an order against the revisionist and other persons to whom notices were given and cancelled the allotments made in their favour under his order dated 11-6-81. Aggrieved persons including the revisionist Tej Singh sought restoration on the ground that no notice had actually been given to them nor they could have any knowledge about the proceedings and the report regarding the allegations of refusal were not correct. The versions were supported by affidavits also but the learned Additional Collector refused to agree with the grounds and held that the versions of the applicants about Ignorance of proceedings could not be believed and accordingly the restoration applications were rejected on 9-11-81. This revision has been preferred by Sri Tej Singh only who is one of the applicants seeking restoration of the order under revision.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record.