S.P.PANDEY, j. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act ( here in after referred to as the Act) preferred against the order dated 21-12-1995 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, arising out of an order dated 18-1-1994 passed by the learned trial Court in the proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that an application dated 7-12-1991 was moved on behalf of one Diley Ram Singh under Section 198 (4) of the Act with the prayer that he is an agricultural land­less labourer belonging to scheduled caste and is in possession over plot No. 121 since before 30-6-85 and the same has been il­legally allotted in favour of the defendant, Mukundi Singh and as such the lease granted in favour of Mukundi Singh be cancelled and rights of bhumidhar with transferable rights be conferred on him. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite formalities, has rejected the aforesaid application on 18-1-1994. Ag­grieved by this order a revision petition was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner by means of his order dated 21-12-1995 has upheld the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court and dis­missed the revision. 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 revision has been in continuous possession over the land in question for the last over 10 years; that he is a landless agricultural labourer belong­ing to scheduled caste and as such he can­not be evicted from the land in question under Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act; that the revisionist's rights are protected under Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act and as such the learned Courts below have absolutely failed in exercise of their jurisdiction by illegally rejecting the application of the revisionist ; that the learned lower revisional Court has not properly ap­preciated the evidence on record and has recorded an erroneous, perverse and un­reasonable finding against him ; that no procedure prescribed by law has been Al­lowed while granting the lease in question in favour of the respondent No. 1. In sup­port of his contentions, he has cited the case laws reported in 1993 RD 189 (BR), 1994 RD 118 (BR), 1995 RD 470 (BR). In reply the learned Counsel for the opposite party urged that the disputed land has been allotted in favour of the opposite party following the relevant procedure prescribed by law; that the finding of fact recorded by the learned Courts below can­not be upset at this second revisional stage with out ATany valid ground ; that the revisionist is not an aggrieved person who has utterly foiled to get himself declared as bhumidhar with transferable rights under Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act and as such the aforesaid orders passed by the learned Courts below be maintained. In support of his contentions he has cited the case laws reported in 1999 ALR 810 (SC) and 752 (SC), 1973 RD 205 (HC), 1982 RD 300 (BR), 1984 RD 337 (FB), 1985 AWC 7 (Rev) (BR) (FB) 1994 RJ 137 (HC), 1988 RD455(HC), 1992RD51 (FB).
(3.) I have closely and carefully ex­amined the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and the relevant records on file. O n a close scrutiny of the records it is manifestly clear that the learned trial Court has properly analysed discussed and considered the material and relevant facts and circumstances of the instant case and has recorded a clear and categorical finding to the effect that the allotment made in favour of the opposite party No. 1 is just, proper and in con­sonance with the provisions of law. The learned lower revisional Court has also examined the matter in question in correct perspective of law and has correctly drawn a conclusion to the effect that the revisionist is not an aggrieved person who has not got himself declared z&bhumidhar with transferable rights. I see no reason to disagree with the conclusion drawn by the learned Courts below and to my mind the impugned order passed by the learned lower revisional Court is quite just proper sustainable, well-founded and wholly war­ranted in law which must be sustained. The revisionist has utterly failed to establish the fact that an irregular allotment has been made in favour of the opposite party No. 1, Mukundi. From a perusal of the record, it is also worthwhile to mention here that both the parties- belong to the scheduled caste community. Having scrutinised the matter in question, I find that no error of fact or jurisdiction has been committed by the learned lower revisional Court so as to warrant any inter­ference by this Court at this second revisional stage. I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist. The case laws referred to by him are of no avail to the revisionist.;