TELU Vs. CHANDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for both the parties are absent.

(2.) Facts and evidence are available on record hence the reference is decided on merits.

(3.) The learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, has recommended by his judgment dated 30.12.1993 that the parties came to terms on the basis of the compromise, hence the revision must be accepted. After looking into the record I find that the Gata No. 313 area 2.20 is recorded as 'Rasta' and Gata No. 243 area 0.11.0 is recorded as 'Johar'. Both the plots come in the category of land under Sec. 132 Z.A. and L.R. Act. Even other relevant formalities before the allotment under Rule 173 Z.A. Rules have not been complied with. The procedure which has been adopted for the allotment is also not complete. Moreover, the land in question is public utility land which cannot be allotted to any body. The compromise between the parties does not bear any relevance. Keeping in view the fact that the nature of the land is public utility and is recorded under Sec. 132 Z.A Act, I feel that no allotment can be made for the land which comes under this category.