- (1.) S. P. Pandey, J. This is a revision petition preferred against the order dated 15-5-1998 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad arising out of an order dated 10-12-1997 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act.
(2.) THE relevant facts, briefly stated are that the plaintiff Chet Ram instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act against the defendant, U. P. State and the Gaon Sabha concerned with the prayer that his name by ordered to be recorded by way of a lease of the suit plot No. 601/1. 10 hectares as he is a lease holder in possession over the aforesaid suit land which is a 'talab' on the spot. THE learned trial Court by means of its order dated 10-12-1997, vacated its order dated 13-11-1996 maintaining the status quo on the spot on an application moved on behalf of the defendants, U. P. State and the Gaon Sabha concerned. Aggrieved by this order, a revision was preferred. THE learned lower revisional Court through its order dated 6-1-1998 has dismissed the revision as not main tainable. Hence this second revision peti tion. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record on file. For the revisionist, it was contended that the orders of the Courts below are incorrect improper and illegal and against the facts and circumstances of the case that the same are based on presumptions and surmises and are no orders in the eye of law that the learned Courts below have misread and mis-inter preted the evidence on record resulting in miscarriage of justice caused to the (sic ). As such the aforesaid impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below be set aside. The learned DGC (R) appearing for the U. P. State submitted that consequent upon an amendment vide U. P. Act No. XX of 1997, the second revision petition is not maintainable but the revisionist Chet Ram has preferred this second revision petition which must be dismissed as not maintainable. It was further submitted that this is a revision preferred against an interlocutory order and the stay applica tion submitted by the revisionist is yet to be decided by the learned lower revisional Court and as such this revision petition must bedismissedas not maintainable. I have closely and carefully ex amined the matter in question and have also gone through the relevant records on file. On a close examination of the records it is crystal clear that the second revision has been preferred by the aforesaid Chct Ram under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act against the order dated 15-5-1998 passed by the learned Additional Commis sioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad. Since the second revision is not main tainable under the aforesaid Amendment in Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act, I need not enter into the merits of the case and this revision petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY this revision peti tion is dismissed as not maintainable. Let records be returned forthwith to the Courts concerned. The parties are directed to ap pear before the learned trial Court on 31-10-2000 for further proceedings in the case pending before it. Revision dismissed. .;