NARESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Yadav, J. This is a reference made by the Additional Commissioner, Bareilly Division, to set aside the order dated 17-6-2003 passed by the trial Court/additional Collector, Pilibhit.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that on the report of Tahsildar, Pilibhit, dated 2-1-92 the proceedings under Sections 107/168-A of Z. A. & L. R. Act were initiated by the Additional Collector, Pilibhit, in respect of the Plot No. 495/1. 72 acres, situate in village Maidana, Pargana, Tehsil and District Pilibhit. THE above mentioned plot is said to have been transferred by Ram Swarup to one Naresh Chandra S/o Lekhraj wherein 1/2 of the portion stood transferred. On receipt of the said report the notices were issued to the opposite parties; on being served upon them, objections were filed therein stating that the transferee was the co-tenant alongwith Hari Ram, Jarman Lal and Nanhe Lal S/o Ram Swarup as such, the alleged transfer was not hit by Section 167/168-A of Z. A. & L. R. Act. In addition to this, the oral evidence of Sukh Lal, Ganga Ram and he himself also produced whereby the statement of objectors corroborated. THE Additional Collector after evaluating the evidence on file arrived at the conclusion that the alleged transfer was hit by the Sections 167/168-A of Z. A. & L. R. Act as such, by way of the impugned order vested the disputed land with the State of U. P. Aggrieved by the above order, the revisionist preferred revision before the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, which has been heard by the Additional Commissioner and the aforesaid recommendation has been made in respect thereof.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the relevant papers on file, the main points for consideration in the matter are whether the area where the land in dispute is situate is the consolidated area or not whether there is any adjacent land of the transferee to that of transferred land or not? and whether the transferred land has been transferred one of the co-sharers of the land or not? In the instant matter it is undisputed that the area where the disputed land is situate is a consolidated area; the village has passed through the consolidation operations. It is also clear from the evidence on record that Naresh Chandra S/o Lekhraj has no land adjacent to the transfer one. It is also clear from the records that Naresh Chandra S/o Lekhraj is not the co-tenant with Ram Swarup or Hari Ram, Jarman Lal and Nanhe Lal. Had the land been transferred to one of the co-tenants or co-sharers then certainly it would not have come under the scope of the fragmentation; but as mentioned above it has not been transferred among any co-sharers as such, the same should be treated under the scope of fragmentation. The learned trial Court while dealing with the matter has rightly interpreted the referred citation, but the learned Additional Commissioner while dealing with the matter has misinterpreted the referred citation; meaning thereby that the learned Additional Commissioner has committed error in making reference for setting aside the trial Court's order. The trial Court's finding is based on facts and law which is free from any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error. In the circumstances, I do not find force in the reference made by the learned Additional Commissioner which deserves to be rejected. In the result, the reference is rejected, the revision is dismissed and the order dated 17-6-93 passed by the trial Court is hereby upheld. Let the Collector, Pilibhit took further action in the matter in accordance with law; the parties shall bear their own costs. Reference rejected. .