SURESHWATI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAM Janani Singh, Member. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 20-5-88 passed by learned Ad ditional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut in Revision No. 46 of 1987-88 dis trict Ghaziabad.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

(3.) BOTH the Courts below have held that the resolution dated 11-2-81 is not in accordance with rules and the relevant sections of the Act. Munadi and Agenda have not been done in accordance with the law and have also held that the case of the revisionist is not covered under Section 198 (1 ) (a) of the Act. After a perusal of the record, it is found that the death certificate in thesignatureof Lt. Colonel B. S. Mangat (Paper No. 15/1) dated 15-7-77 is on record and also a condolence message in the signa ture of D. P. Honjan Captain OO Signal 17, Assam Rifles (Paper No. 15/2) dated 13-7-77 is on record. The composite Agenda and Munadi (Paper No. 15/4) is also on recored which shows that the Munadi was issued on 5-2-1981 in which the place and time of meeting was also mentioned. Collector did not accept this Paper No. 15/'4asacomposite resolution and the Agenda and Munadi only on the ground that there is no mention of Khasra and the area of the land which was to he allotted but this is very technical point on the basis of which the resolution cannot be considered to be illegal. A composite Agen da and Munadi is proved by the paper No. 15/4. The case of the revisionist is very well covered under Section 1981 (1) (a) because she is war widow and war widow's case should be considered sympathitically and on humantarian grounds. " Except this disputed land the revisionist has no other land for her livelihood. True copy of the resolution dated 11 -2-81 is also on record i. e. paper No. 15/6. The relevant receipt is also on record which is (paper No. 15/7) and the patta which was certified by the Kanoongo and the Pradhan Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti is also on record which is (paper No. 15/8 ). (Paper No. 15/9) is also a receipt which had been issued in the signature of Sub-Registrar Dahri to show that the lease-deed in question was resigtered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Dadri Ghaziabad. The opinion of both the Courts below is not based on the fact and evidence on record. They technically ob served that Rule 173, Z. A. Rules had not been complied with. The intention of such rules is to intimate the members and the persons eligible for the allotment to as semble on such and such dale and at such and such place. Paper No. 15/4 contains a sort of information which is required before the resolution is passed. When the case of the present revisionist is covered under Section 198 (1) (a) the preparation of Z. A. Form 57-Ka and 57- Kha is not mandatory. Hence the opinion expressed by both the Courts below regarding the resolution dated 11-2-81 is against the fact and law.