S.R.YADAV, j. - (1.) THIS is a revision against the order dated 19-12-97 passed by the learned Additional Commis­sioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad aris­ing out of proceedings under Section 198 (4) of UPZA and LR Act heard and decided by the CRO, Faizabad vide the order dated 16-2-95.
(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the revisionist and perused the relevant papers on file. As nobody appeared on behalf of otherside despite proper infor­mation hence the revision has been heard ex-parte and is also decided accordingly. The learned Counsel for .the revisionist submitted that the revisionist was not given opportunity before the learned lower revisional Court and the learned Additional Commissioner quashed the orders of the learned trial Court without recording any finding thereon, that the village where the tend in dispute is situate has passed through the consolidation operation, that the cancel­lation proceedings were once decided in 1982 the same became final and the sub­sequent proceedings are barred by resjudicata, that the grove was not notified and mere existence of trees did not mean that the land is not vacant that the allottees were eligible for the allotment. In support of his claims he has cited the case laws reported in 1991 RD 58, 1982 RD 300 and 1992 RD 256.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the revisionist and perusing the records the entire matter is nut and shell happens to be in respect of old plot No. 1143M/1-5-0 and new No. 1380 situate in village Tara Khurd, Pargana and Tahsil Akbarpur, Dis­trict Ambedkar Nagar, which stood al­lotted for agricultural proposes to the revisionist as early as 1978 in respect of which the application for cancellation of the allotment was moved by the opposite-party here in 1993 with the allegations that the said allotment was without any agenda, munadi as required by law for such allot­ment. It was also alleged therein that the land in dispute was not vacant at the time of allotment because sufficient mango trees and Peepal trees existed over the same. It was also alleged that the revisionists were in railway service hence they were not eligible for the allotment. After obtaining the Tahsil report dated 12-4-93, the CRO, Faizabad, dismissed the application holding the same as time barred. Aggrieved by the above said order, a revision was preferred before the learned Commissioner, Faizabad and the same has stood decided vide the order of the learned Additional Commissioner dated 19-12-97, against which the revision before the-Board is being heard by this Court.;