S.P.PANDEY, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA & LR. Act (here in after referred to as the Act), preferred against the judg­ment and order, dated 28-1-1998, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, arising out of an order, dated 29-9-1995 and 19-2-1997 passed by the learned trial Court in proceedings under Section 161 of the Act.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that an application under Section 161 of the Act was moved on behalf of Dharamshala Jatvans through its President/Mantri/Harijan Utthan and Kalyan Samiti, tehsil Thakurdwara district Moradabad, with the allegations that the Dharamshala Jatvans is looked after by the Harijan Utthan and Kalyan Samiti (here in after referred to as the Samiti) but Jatvans temple, situated in the same locality, is at long distance from the aforesaid temple, while the same is also managed by the Samiti;that the opposite party Smt. Ram Sakhi and Smt. Chandrawati are bhumidhars in posses­sion over plot No. 256, admeasuring .364 hectare, situate in Fatehullahganj locality, which is in front of the aforementioned Jatvans leinplc on the main ro'adjthat the Dharamshala Jatvans is also in possession over the proposed plot No. 268, admeasur­ing .42 hectare and both the parties have given their consent in writing for the proposed exchange of the aforesaid plots and as such, the exchange of plot No. 268 area 0.170 hectare be allowed to be ex­changed with an area of .170 hectare of plot No. 256 of the same Mau/a. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite formalities, has allowed the aforesaid exchange on 29-9-1995, on the basis of the tehsil report, dated 19-9-1995, as per which the tchsildar, concerned has recommended for the aforementioned proposed exchange. Later on, 01 13-11-1995, one Ghasi Ram and others filed a restoration application before the learned trial Court for setting aside the aforesaid order of exchange, passed by it and the same has been rejected by the learned trial Court on 19-2-1997, on the ground that the applicants were neither parties to the suit nor are mandatory parties to it. Ag­grieved by this order, a revision petition was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner by means of his order 28-1-1998, has allowed the revision petition and quashed the orders, dated 29-9-1995 and 19-2-1997. Hence this second revision petition. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and have also perused the record, on file. None appeared for the opposite party despite due notice. For the revisionist, it was contended that the Samiti, Thakurdwara, Moradabad owns and runs the Dharamshala and temple in Faizullaganj, Thakurdwara district Moradabad and plot No. 268 area .170 hectare was for the use of the temple that the revisionist Ram Sakhi and Smt. Chandrawati Devi along with one Omwati Devi own and have their plot No. 256 area 0.364 hectare, situate in the same Mauza of Thakurdwara; that plot No. 256 of the revisionists is contiguously located in be­tween the Dharamshala and the Samiti and has been in use and enjoyment of the Samili and likewise plot No. 268 of the Samiti is located contiguously with other plots and properties of the revisionists;that the Samiti applied for the proposed exchange of its plot No. 268 area. 170 hectare and the Nagarpalika Parishad passed a resolution on 9-9-1993, as per which the matter in question has been accepted and approved the same;that the samiti moved an application on 6-6-1994 before the learned trial Court under Section 161 of the Act for the proposed exchange of the area of its plot No. 268 with that of plot No. 256 of the revisionist; that the tehsildar concerned has sub­mitted his report recommending the aforesaid proposed exchange and both the parties have given their affidavit and con­sent for the aforesaid exchange, which has been allowed by the learned trial Court on 29-9-1995 and accordingly, the required mutation has also been effected in the revenue reeords that there after the par­ties, concerned have entered into the pos­session of their exchanged area of the plots concerned and have raised and expanded their constructions also over their ex­changed area; that the Samiti has ex­panded its Dharamshala over the new plot No. 256 and the revisionists have also con­structed their houses over their new plot No. 268; that the applicants who have moved the aforesaid restoration applica­tion have no locus-standi to move the same and as such, the restoration application moved by them, is liable to be rejected; that they have not sought any impleadmcnt in the aforesaid exchange case before the learned trial Court, but the revision preferred by the applicants has been il­legally allowed by the learned lower Revisional Court, who was illegally al­lowed the revision petition and quashed the orders dated 29-9- 1995 and 19-2-97, passed by the learned trial Court; that the learned lower Revisional Court could, at the most, set aside the order dated 19-2-1997 and remanded the case to the learned trial Court for restrain of the retrial mat-ter;that the learned lower Revisional Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the order dated 29-9-1995, as the first revision petition has been preferred before the Commissioner against the order dated 19-2-1997;that the learned lower Revisional Court has not properly examined the points at issue and has com­mitted an error of fact and law; that it has miserably failed to reverse the finding recorded by the learned trial Court;that without affordingany opportunity of hear­ing to the revisionist and without obtain­ing any enquiry report from the tehsildar, concerned as to the matter in question, it has illegally quashed the aforesaid order, dated 29-9-1995, passed by the learned trial Court, passed on mcritsjthal both the parties have given their consent to the aforesaid exchange and have also raised their constructions there on and as such, a great miscarriage of justice has been caused to the parlies through the aforesaid order passed by the learned lower Revisionist Court, who could not have any jurisdiction to quash the order 29-9-1995 and 19- 2-1997 and as such, the aforesaid impugned order, passed by the learned lower Revisional Court is liable to be quashed, as it has been passed without jurisdiction, in violation of the principles of substantial natural justice and equity and without considering the constructions raised by both the parties, over their respective exchanged land in dispute. In support of his contentions he has cited the case law, reported in 1982 AWC 43 and 1984 AWC 1051.
(3.) I have carefully and closely con­sidered the contentions, raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and have also gone through the relevant records on file. On a close scrutiny of the record, it is crystal clear that the learned trial Court by means of its order dated 19-2-1997, has rightly rejected aforesaid restoration application moved by Ghasi Ram and others, as they were neither par­ties to the suit, in question, nor they are mandatory parties to it. They have miserably failed to show any cogent ground to prove their locus-standi to the matter in question. On 29-9-1995, the learned trial Court allowed the aforesaid proposed exchanged between the parties. It has properly analysed, discussed and considered the relevant and material facts and circumstances of the instant case in correct perspective of law. It has correctly based its aforesaid order on the report dated 19-8-1995, submitted by the Tehsil­dar concerned who has recommended for the aforesaid proposed exchange. As per the report of the lekhpal, concerned, dated 23-7-1994, there is no any pond (Talab) on the spot and this land is suitable for Abadi (Dharamshala). The Tehsil report also refers to the location of the plot No. 256 which lay in between the Dharamshala and the Samiti and if exchange is permitted, t he properties of the Samiti would be compact and more conveniently managed. The aforesaid report also mentions that the nature and valuation of both the plots are the same and there is no difference in the rental value of the properties and as such, 1 see no any infirmity in the aforesaid order, passed by the learned trial Court. The site plan appended to the aforesaid Tehsil report, clearly shovys that by way of the aforesaid proposed exchange, the Jatvan Abadi and temple would adjoin the aforesaid proposed exchanged land and none of the parties would feel aggrieved by the aforesaid exchange.;