Kanhai Lal vs State of U.P.& Ors.

S. N. Shukla, Member.

This revision has been preferred against the order dated 2871999 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Bareilly in Revision Nos. 35/11/437 of 199697 preferred against the order dated 31101996 passed by the Learned Upper Collector Pilibhit in Suit No. 01/8889 in a case under Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that proceedings were initiated under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against the revisionist on the ground that he is not the resident of the village where the land in dispute is situate. The revisionist was not served with any notice and the lease granted in his favour was cancelled by the Additional Collector on 13188. Against this order, a restoration was filed by the revisionist which was allowed on 51088. Thereafter the matter was revived and the Additional Collector by his order dated 311096 passed an order cancelling the allotment dated 30693 said to have been executed in favour of Ram Autar and Ram Bharose. The learned Additional Commissioner also observed that it should be ascertained as to whether Kanhai is entitled to get the benefit of Section 122B (4F) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Against this order a revision was filed by Ram Bharose and Ram Autar. The learned Additional Commissioner allowed the revision and remanded the case to the trial Court against which the present revision has been filed.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties perused the record.

From a perusal of the record its is obvous that the learned trial Court had passed a correct order which did not need any interference in revision. Proceddings were going on from 1988 and Kanhai was claiming benefit of Section 122B (4F) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. If Kanhai succeeds in getting his rights declared as bhumidhar with nontransferable rights the land would not be deemed to be vacant on the date on which Ram Bharose and Ram Autar claimed to have obtained allotment from the Gaon Sabha. In the circumstances of the present case the order passed by the learned trial Court was perfectly justified. The learned Additional Commissioner took a wrong view in the matter and passed an order of remand which was not justified. His order suffers from patent legal error and is bound to be set aside.

In view of the above, revision is allowed, the order passed by Additional Commissioner dated 28799 is set aside and the of the trial Court is restored.

Revision allowed.