Himanshu Kumar, Member:— The SDO, Jasarana, by his order dated 7.8.1995 directed that the kurras allotted to the opposite party No. 1 Harish Chandra be allotted to the opposite party No. 2, Ramesh Chandra and those allotted to the opposite party No. 2, Ramesh Chandra be allotted to the opposite party No. 1 Harish Chandra in proceedings under section 176 of U.P.Z.A and L.R Act. Against this order a revision filed in the Court of the Additional Commissioner, Agra was dismissed by his order dated 20.1.1997 Against which the present revision has been filed before the Board of Revenue.
2. The grounds of revision basically are that a preliminary decree was passed on 14.5.1992 The Lekhpal filed kurras on 17.9.1993, Ramesh Chandra filed his objection on 10.11.1993 and Deep Chandra filed objection on 24.12.1993 It is alleged in the grounds that Ramesh Chandra and Deep Chandra in their objection demanded the kurras of each other, that is, a mututal exchange of kurras; whereas Harish Chandra did not file any objection nor were any objections filed on his kurras. It was alleged in the grounds before this Court that Deep Chandra and Ramesh Chandra agreed mutually to exchange kurras but the Trial Court wrongly changed kurras of the applicant Harish Chandra.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and despite repeated calls and due notice no one appeared on behalf of the opposite parties. The opposite parties were given chance to file written argument by 17.8.2006 which they failed to do. I have gone through the records, specifically, objections filed by Ramesh Chandra on 10.11.1993 and those filed by Deep Chandra on 24.12.1993
4. In his objections Ramesh Chandra has no where asked for the kurras of Deep Chandra. He has given a choice of the kurras of Harish Chandra.
5. Thus, it is clear from record that the main grounds of revisions are not borne out by the records.
6. If find the impugned orders passed by the SDO, Jasrana and the Additional Commissioner, Agra well reasoned, speaking and evaluating of evidence and consequently deserve no interference.
7. In view of the above, the instant revision fails and is hereby dismissed. The impugned orders dated 20.1.1997 and 7.8.1995 are hereby upheld and sustained. Let the records be returned forthwith to the Courts concerned and this Court's file be consigned to the record room.
8. Revision Dismissed.