- (1.) RAM Janam Singh, J. This reference has been made by learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut vide his order dated 28- 11- 1995 passed in Revision No. 93 of 94-95 recommending that the revision filed by the revisionist against the order dated 10-8-95 be allowed and the order in question be set aside and the case be remanded to it for fresh decision on merits according to law.
(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records carefully. On the complaint of Rajbeer and others proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act were initiated for the cancellation of the allotment made in favour of Tirkha and others. The trial Court rejected the compliant. Feeling ag grieved by this order Rajbeer and others filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner who made a reference to this Court. A perusal of records shows that the proper opportunity had not been afforded to the present revisionist to have their say. The complainant slated specifically that the provisions of Rules 173 to 176 of UPZA and LR Rules have not been fol lowed and Munadi and agenda have also not been circulated according to law. It has also been stated that the allotics were not eligible persons as several persons of higher priority and preference were present in the village. The trial Court did not lake these points into consideration in passing the impugned order. The learned Additional Commissioner took the entire material on record into consideration and found that the Trial Court has not Decided the instant proceedings in a proper judi cial manner and that the case deserves remand for fresh trial. I entirely agree with him.
(3.) IN view of the above, I accept the reference made by learned Additional Commissioner, set aside the order of the trial Court dated 10-8-95 and remand the case to it for fresh decision in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties. Reference accepted. .;