S.P Pandey, Member:— This is a revision preferred against the order dated 18.12.97 passed by the learned Trial Court in the proceedings under Section 122-C of U.P.Z.A and 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 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 assert that a lease has been executed in their favour.
3. After obtaining the required Tahsil 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 18.12.97 Hence this revision.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record on file. For the revisionist it was contended that the orders of the learned Courts below ware illegal and suffers from material irregularity, that the revisionist have raised construction over the disputed land and are residing therein with their family, that the findings of the learned Trial Court is totally perverse and hence it is liable to be set-aside. In support of his contention, he has cited the case law reported in 1994 RD page 92 (H.C Allahabad) and R.D 1993 page 286 (Full Bench Revenue Board). The learned D.G.C (R) appearing on behalf of the State submitted that Section 122-C (7) of U.P.Z.A and L.R Act bars this revision preferred against the order of Additional Collector as the order of Additional Collector is final, that the disputed land is of public utility and becomes under Section 132 of U.P.Z.A and L.R Act.
5. 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 by this Court in the same. 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.
6. To my mind the aforesaid impugned order dated 18.12.97 passed by the learned Trial Court is sustainable, well founded and wholly warranted in law and as such it must be maintained.
7. Consequently this revision being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed and the aforesaid impugned order dated 18.12.97 is hereby sustained. Let the records be returned forthwith to the Court concerned. Stay order if any is vacated.
8. Revision Dismissed.
Comments