- (1.) S. P. Pandey, J. This is a ref erence dated 9-9-1992 made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad with his recommen-dalion that the order dated 27-2-1991 passed by the learned trial Courl be set aside.
(2.) BRIEF and relevanl facts of the ease are that these proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act were inilialed on an application dated 23-7-1988 moved by one, Sita Ram. The learned trial Courl after compleiing the requisite formalities rejected the aforesaid applica tion. Aggrieved by this order a revision petition was preferred. The learned Addi tional Commissioner has made this reference with the aforesaid recommendation. No written objection has been filed by the contesting opposite party. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and have also perused the record on file. None appeared for the opposite party despite due notice. For the revisionist, it was submitted that the refer ence by accepted and the revision petition be allowed as per the aforesaid recommen dation made by the learned Additional Commissioner. I have closely and carefully ex amined the submission made by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and have also gone through the relevant records on file. From a bare perusal of the record it is abundantly clear that the learned lower revisional Court had properly examined the relevant and material facts and circumstances of the instant case and had rightly recommended for setting aside the order dated 27-2-1991 passed by the learned trial Court. I entirely agree with the conclusion drawn by the learned lower revisional Court and see no reason to disagree with the same as the relevant aspects of the matter in question has been properly examined by the learned Additional Commissioner. To my mind, no error of law fact or jurisdiction has been committed by the learned lower revisional Court so as to warrant any interference by this Court.
(3.) IN view of the discussions made hereinabove, I come to the conclusion that this reference is worthy of being accepted and the revision petition deserves to be allowed. In consequence this reference is accepted the revision petition is allowed and the aforesaid impugned order dated 27-2-1991 passed by the learned trial Court is here by set aside as per the aforementioned recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner. Let records be returned forthwith to the Courts concerned. Reference accepted .;