A.U Khan, J.M:— By order dated 30.8.1995 a reference by Additional Commissioner recommending to set aside the order of trial court dated 29.4.1994; to remit the cause to court of first instance for re-disposal in an action at law under Rule 115-P Z.A and L.R Rules.

2. The facts as appear from the pleadings are: On 19.1.1994 Paras Nath and five others move an application under Rule 115-P Z.A Rules to cancel the allotment of abadi site favouring Durga Prasad and others; the application in the court of Collector, Allahabad. It is pleaded they are using the land and their interest is as aggrieved person. That on 22.12.1992 Land Management Committee has purported to execute a lease of abadi site without least adhering to accredited process; no proclamation was issued/no agenda was circulated amongst members of Land Management Committee, no resolution in order was passed. On 31.12.1992 approval of Sub-Divisional Officer had been secured through misrepresentation. The allottees are not eligible persons in the sense that they do not figure in the list in order of preference. Allottee Durga Prasad is brother of Pradhan. Allottees 2 to 8 are members of his household. Some of them are living one kilometer away from the land. Allottees 9 to 20 live in village Bodnipur; a distance of three kilometers; they have already been granted lease in the past. As allottees 1 to 8 are members of household of Pradhan Collector's prior permission is necessary. They are not in possession too. Also allottees have their own houses to live in. The allotment dated 22.12.1992 has touch of fraudulence and is conspicuously irregular and invalid. The relief to cancel the allotment is prayed for. An affidavit in support of various allegations.

3. On 21.1.1994 an objection in total denial by allottees Durga Prasad and others. It is alleged Land Management Committee has strictly adhered to process prescribed by the law. They are landless agricultural labours and are entitled to abadi sites. The applicants are not aggrieved persons. The relief to dismiss the motion is prayed for. In support of defending cause are various affidavits. On 29.4.1995 Additional Collector Shri B.N Singh has cancelled the allotment; he further directs Sub-Divisional Officer to take steps for re-allotment in favour of scheduled castes. Aggrieved by the order a revision by Durga Prasad's. On 30.8.1995 Additional Commissioner forwards a reference to set aside the order of trial court; to remit the cause for re-disposal in the light of illuminating observations. The reference dockets here for a final and definitive decision. Heard the counsel for the parties; the record has been perused.

4. Before I begin grappling with the prime issues it is well to extract below relevant part of reference order.

5. In averring that a show cause notice should have been issued to allottees before contemplated final order Additional Commissioner did not sensitively examine whether allottees in fact are in any manner whatsoever misled or prejudiced in their defence. They have full awareness of elaborate particulars as their objection dated 21.1.1994 adequately demonstrates. When a person knows a thing in detail and wide compass why he should be re-told the same thing? 1985 R.D 111 High Court elucidates this in the context of a show cause notice. It is not a Mantra to be pronounced in a particular way to invoke religious efficacy. The purpose is to inform what are grounds for cancellation. By the method of show cause notice or otherwise allottees become fully aware of grounds laid for action at law. That is all. This reason for remit of the cause utterly fails.

6. The second ground is that Allotment File should have been summoned to examine the validity of patta; to see due adherence to various rules. It is sickening to notice a radical opinion as this is put forth without an attempt at documentation. How the evidence contained in Allotment File can be a part of judicial file? That material cannot be subsumed for appreciation in this case. The burden is allottees to take and file certified extracts of relevant papers to show rational coherence. I am supported in this view by 1969 R.D 105. This has laid down:

“The documents of the proceedings of Land Management Committee are in the nature of public documents and ordinarily only copies of any documents should have been placed on the record without summoning the record. Where actual entries in the original papers have to be examined the court may send for them to examine and the validity of decision cannot be said to be open to question merely because copies were not on the record.”

7. This ground too fails the cause of reference.

8. The Tahsildar's report dated 18.5.1993 is in for nervous assessment. Trial Court has relied upon it still then Additional Commissioner is not vexed by this. I am of the view that inquiry report is inadmissible in evidence. 1990 R.D 267 H.C lays down:

“The report of Naib Tahsildar is the expression of his own impression on the basis of spot inspection. This is not a public document of the nature referred to under Section 74 Evidence Act and cannot also be admissible under Section 35 of the said Act. The report of Naib Tahsildar contains the result of his investigation and cannot be said to be the entry in the public or official book, register or record contemplated under Section 35 of the Evidence Act. A Division Bench of this court in State of U.P v. Smt. Ram Sri AIR 1976 Alld. 121 , 1975 RD 339 has held that the Tahsildar's report containing the impression of his investigation is not admissible in evidence. Relevant extract from paragraph 28 of the said decision is quoted below:

“Further, we are of the opinion that report of Tahsildar is an expression of his impression gathered by him on the spot. The report is evidence only of the fact that he had been deputed to make an inquiry and that he came to the conclusion mentioned by him in his report and shown in the map. It will, however, be incorrect to say that the report is admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, as submitted by learned counsel for the appellants. Had the defendant examined the Tahsildar as witness the report might have become admissible under some other provision of the Evidence Act.”

9. On a consideration of foregoing I am of certain opinion that Tahsildar's report dated 18.5.1993 eliminates itself.

10. Also a point pleaded is that trial court has not recorded findings on all elements which coher to render allotment regular and valid. The litigarian view is that a revisional judge has no competence to enter new findings in the factual realm—not gone by trial court. I am not impressed by this contention. Section 115 C.P.C—Section 333-A Z.A Act is bit larger—circumscribes the limits of that jurisdiction. This is exercised as part of general appellate jurisdiction of a superior court It is only one of the modes to exercise power conferred by the statute. Basically and fundamentally it is appellate. It is being envoked and exercised in a wider and large sense: A.I.R 1970 S.C There is a difference but not a distinction in the scope of appeal and revision—the revision falling a little short but to draw a dividing line is not possible. I find difficult in expressing to my neighbour the poetry I find for myself in the muniment room. I have seldom come across an order of trial court comprehensively pinning down finding on all issues in context. That will not occasion a remand again and again. Order 41 Rule 24 C.P.C is an effective prohibition against that. Out of say 10 factual items in controversy trial court has entered findings on say 6 matters—will not this have cogency to approach a decision? This fact reverberates more loudly in an inquiry where lease is open to cancellation on one ground: breach of even one rule out of several. This reason for remit of the cause too woefully fails.

11. All this is Additional reasons I find groundless. When evidence on record is sufficient and trial court flounders in failing on this aspect or that the function of superior judge is to perfect, to improve, to alter when necessary but always to go forward.

12. I now proceed to consider the findings fastened by trial court to discern it's implications and make intelligible what he says. Trial court on 29.4.1995 has reached precise findings that a few allottees live at a distance of two kilometers away from the land in dispute. They have residential houses, have agricultural land; and are tenants of large farms. Some of the allottees are daughters-in-law of persons who are members of Land Management Committee. No permission of Collector taken in terms envisaged under Section 28-C Panchayat Raj Act. The land is beside the road. Some area is part of road of Zila Parishad. These categorical findings of magnitude remain unaccounted for in the appraisal of revisional court. I am distressed no attempt has been made to be specific in relation to particular allottees. A generalised treatment is hardly good enough for each individual in relation to his separate concern.

13. Before allotment Land Management Committee to announce by beat of drum in the village the exact location of the sites to be allotted; the time, the date and venue of the allotment. Where is documental evidence of adherence to this requirement? Where more than one person belonging to the same order of preference expresses the desire to be allotted a particular site the Committee shall draw lots to determine the person to whom the site should be allotted. Where is proof in support of following this procedure? The allottees have not placed on record a certificate in Z.A Form 49-F. These are serious Even one cause: allottees are not agricultural labours is enough to upturn the lease. Whether Z.A Form 49-F had been attested by a revenue official remains obscure. In any event I cannot validate on attempt by well-to-do persons to seize Gaon Sabha land.

14. There is still more to ponder. Where is evidence on record that a meeting of Land Management Committee was called in terms contemplated by Rule 110 Z.A Rules. As Pradhan was interested in the allotment to his brother Durga Prasad he should not have sat in the chair if a session was really scheduled for deliberation.

15. In the year 1976 or thereabouts an Hon'ble Member bitterly anguished by poor quality of orders of subordinate courts had remarked: things have come to such a sorry pass that a Tahsildar cannot pass a proper order on a simple application. The distress is now deeper. A District Collector is unable to distinguish between a suit and a proceeding or between judicial or non-judicial characteristics of an action at law. An Additional Commissioner, as illustrated here, pitifully flounders in deciding a simple revision on fact and at law. To deny this is the acne of intellectual irresponsibility. One must try to read the file, to ponder over the problem and to know more and more intimately. The celebrated Painter Van Gogh says:

“I always think that the best way to know God is to love many things— that is what I say to myself. But one must love with a lofty and serious intimate sympathy, with strength, with intelligence and one must try to know deeper and better and more. (Von Gogh: A Self Partrait, Letters Revealing his life as a Painter, selected by S.H Audon, London, 1961. P. 55).

16. The reference is utterly misconceived and is hereby rejected. The order of trial court cancelling the lease is affirmed.

17. Reference Rejected.