S.P.PANDEY - (1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act, preferred against the judgment and order dated 25-9-1993 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, arising out of an order dated 24-4-1992 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 161 of the UPZA and LR Act.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the applicant, Tejaiya moved an application under Section 161 of the UPZA and LR Act with the prayer that the plots mentioned in the aforesaid application and recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha be expunged and entered in the name of the Gaon Sabha and the two plots recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha be entered in the name of the applicant by way of exchange. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial allowed the aforesaid application on 30-6-1986. Aggrieved by this order a restoration application was moved on behalf of the forest department. The learned trial Court has allowed this restoration application dated 24-4-1992. Against this very order a revision petition was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner has dismissed this revision petition on 25-9-1993. Hence this second revision petition. 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 learned trial Court has illegally allowed the aforesaid restoration application which is heavily time-barred and no sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay; that a manifest error of law has been committed by the learned trial Court as the disputed land does not belong to the forest department; that the judgment and order passed by the learned Courts below are erroneous, perverse and unsustainable and as such they must be set aside; that after the judgment dated 29-8-1988 was affirmed in civil appeal by the learned Civil Judge by his order dated 1-8-1989, the aforesaid restoration application filed by the forest department is mala fide and passed on incorrect application of facts; that the learned trial Court has illegally allowed the aforesaid restoration application; that the forest department is wrongly and illegally claiming the disputed land and as such the aforesaid restoration application moved on behalf of the forest department is an abuse of process of law and must be dismissed. In reply, the learned DGC (R) submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned lower revisional Court is an order for remand and as such the parties would avail an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their claims and of being heard by the learned trial Court and as such in the interest of natural justice, the aforesaid impugned judgment and order must be sustained.
(3.) I have carefully and closely considered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant records on file. On a close examination of records, I find that the learned lower revisional Court has properly examined the points at issue and has rightly upheld the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and dismissed the revision, as from a bare perusal of the record it is crystal clear that as per the notifications the disputed land has been transferred to the forest department but the requisite mutation could not be effected. It is also worthwhile to mention here that the disputed land is not the Gaon Sabha property and as such the learned trial Court has rightly allowed the restoration and impleadment application dated 26-5-1988 and has set aside its earlier order dated 30-6-1986. The learned lower revisional Court has also properly considered the material and relevant facts and circumstances of the case and has upheld the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court.;