S.P.PANDEY, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333-A of the UPZA and LR Act, preferred against the order dated 29-5-1995, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad arising out of a judgment and order, dated 30-5-1994 passed by the learned trial Court, in the proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the instant proceedings were in­itiated on the report of the then SDO, concerned, dated 22-12-1991 as per which on 22-12-91 an allotment dated 6-12-1991 was approved in favour of Har Charan Singh Smarak Vidyalaya, Jairampur Sankali, Bijnor of the plots in dispute, as detailed in the order passed by the learned trial Court. The aforesaid SDO, con­cerned, found the aforesaid allotment ir­regular and against the relevant rules and regulations. The learned Additional Col­lector by means of his order dated 30-5-1994 maintained the aforesaid lease-granted in favour of Har Charan Singh Smarak Vidyalaya and rejected the aforesaid report dated 22-12-1991 sub­mitted by the SDO, concerned. Aggrieved by this order, a revision was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner has al­lowed the revision and set aside the aforesaid order dated 30-5-94, passed by the learned trial Court. Hence this second revision petition. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the records on file. For the revisionist, it was contended that the learned lower revisional Court has erroneously and il­legally allowed the revision and set aside the order, passed by the learned trial Court, which was quite reasonable and passed on evidence on record, that the revisionist is a registered educational in­stitution and has spent a lot of money on levelling the land in question and has also raised constructions for public utility pur­pose ; that the U.P. State has not preferred any appeal or revision against the aforesaid order dated 30-5-1994 passed by the learned trial Court and as such the aforesaid order dated 30-5-1994 should be maintained. In support of his contention, he has cited the case laws reported in 1996 ALR 299 (SC), 1997 ACJ 573 (SC), AIR 1960 SC 941 ; 1980 AWC 639 (DB, HC), 1991 RD 51 (FB, BR). In reply, the learned Counsel for the opposite party submitted that the revisionist is an unrecognised educational institution and as such the lease cannot be executed in favour of such an institution; that a number of acres of land has been allotted in favour of such institu­tion which is not exhibited to the aforesaid allotment as per the provisions of law; that the provisions of Rule 173 of the UPZA and LR Rules have not been complied with ; that the leases executed in favour of the revisionist are quite illegal, unjustified and quite against the provisions of law and as such the same must be cancelled.
(3.) I have closely and carefully ex­amined the contentions, raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and relevant records on file. On a close scrutiny of the relevant records, it is amply clear that the suit land is the land of public utility which were reserved for pasture land etc. during the consolidation operations. Apart from this, over 8 acres land have been allotted in favour of the aforesaid institution. There is nothing on the record to show that this institution is a recognised institution. The learned lower revisional Court has properly examined the matter in question and has rightly set aside the aforesaid order dated 30-5-1994 passed by the learned trial Court and allowed the revision petition. The revisionist has miserably failed to establish its claim over the suit land. It is abundantly clear from a perusal of the records that the provisions of Rule 173 of the UPZA and LR Rules were also not complied with, while grant­ing the aforesaid leases in favour of the revisionist. The aforesaid impugned judg­ment and order dated 30-5-1994 passed by the learned trial Court has not been passed in correct perspective of law and as such the learned Additional Commissioner has not committed any error of law, fact or jurisdiction, in setting aside the aforesaid impugned order, dated 30-5-1994. To my mind, the aforesaid impugned order, dated 29-5-1994, is quite just, proper and well founded as well as wholly warranted in law and as such it must be maintained.;