- (1.) S. P. Yadav, Member. This refer ence has been received by the order of Additional Commissioner dated 4-8-95 in which Additional Commissioner has recommended the order of the SDO dated 30-4- 91 and 26-6-93 be set aside.
(2.) NO objection has been filed against the order of Additional Commissioner. Heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist. No body is present on behalf of the opposite party. The learned Counsel for The revisionist has said that the order passed no 30-4-91 was had in law because the learned SDO has no power to declare bhumidhar under Section 122-B (4-F) of the UPZ And LR Act; hence Additional Commissioner has rightly set aside the order of SDO dated 30-4-91. When the order of SDO was had in law the restora tion application was also not main tainable.
(3.) I have seen the order of SDO dated 30-4-91 in which he has approved the report of the Tahsildar dated 3-4-91. In the report dated 3-4-91 Supervisor Kandngo has recommended that on plot No. 713 applicant, Sheonath was in possession before 30-6-95 hence the disputed land be recorded in the name of Sheonath as non-transferable bhumidhar. This report was finally accepted by the SDO on 30-4-91. Against this order revisionist has moved a restoration application which was also dismissed on 26-6-93. After perusal of the record it is clear that the order passed by SDO on 30-4-91 was bad in law hence the Addition al Commissioner has rightly recom mended for selling aside the order dated 30-4-91. In the above circumstances the order dated 4-8-95 raised by Additional Commissioner is confirmed and reference is accepted. Reference accepted. .;