NET RAM Vs. HARSWAROOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision preferred against the order dated 18-12-1997 passed by the learned trial Court in the proceedings under Section 122-C, U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act.

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that an application was moved by one Har Swaroop s/o Heera under Section 122-C, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against the Net Ram and others with the allegations that plot No. 374 area 13-D is khalihan and plot No. 134 area 20-D has been left for manure pits in consolidation and the same are being used accordingly. But the O.Ps. Net Ram and others wanted to have un­authorised occupation over the aforesaid disputed land and they asserts that a lease has been executed in their favour. After obtaining the required tehsil report the learned trial Court found that the O.P. Net Ram has constructed the house over the plot No. 374 and 261 for which no allot­ment has been made in his favour nor there is any entry in the revenue records in this regard. Moreover, he further found that the O.P. No. 1 Net Ram has occupation over the aforesaid disputed land without any lawful authority and hence he has can­celled the alleged unlawful lease on 18-12-1997. Hence this revision.

(3.) I have carefully considered the con­tentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records on file. A bare perusal of the records reveals that the learned trial Court has properly examined the matter in ques­tion and has recorded the clear finding to the effect that O.P. Net Ram has no lawful" allotment over the aforesaid disputed land. It has been further held by him that no valid allotment has been executed in his favour. The O.P. Net Ram has miserably failed to adduce any proper valid lease executed in his favour. The learned trial Court has correctly analysed discussed and considered the facts and circumstan­ces of the instant case in correct perspec­tive of law. No manifest error of jurisdic­tion or law is found in the aforesaid im­pugned order passed by the learned trial Court so as to justify any interference in the same by this Court. No force is found in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and aforesaid case law cited by him are of no avail to the revisionist.