SMT. ANGURI Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Anguri Devi and others have filed this revision against the order dated 29.6.1998 passed by Commissioner, Saharanpur Division with the allegation that the learned Commissioner merely on the basis of affidavit filed by three members of Land Management Committee that Munadi and Agenda were not issued had accepted this affidavit without giving any opportunity for rebuttal to the allottees. On the basis of this affidavit the order of the learned Additional Collector dated 11.6.1997 was recalled and the case was remanded back to the learned Sub -Divisional Officer for further necessary action. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.

(2.) I agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionist that merely on the basis of affidavit filed by three Members of the Land Management Committee this conclusion cannot be drawn that before the allotment was made the Munadi and Agenda were not issued. It was mandatory on the part of the learned Commissioner to have requisitioned the file of allotment and after looking into the original allotment file coupled with the affidavit of three members of the Land Management Committee this conclusion could have been drawn. The complainants are also allottees but the allotment in their favour was for abadi. The abadi patta -holders cannot be termed as aggrieved in case the land is allotted to some other persons and the allottees are preferential claimants as compared to the abadi patta. I think the order passed by learned Commissioner suffers from material irregularity and factual evaluation. I, therefore, feel that the order dated 29.6.1998 passed by learned Commissioner is liable to be set aside and the revision deserves to be allowed. Accordingly the revision is allowed and the order dated 29.6.1998 passed by learned Commissioner is set aside.