S.P.YADAV, j. - (1.) THIS is a refer­ence dated 18-3-97 made by the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, in respect of a revision filed against theorder dated 29-12-92 passed by the trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B of UPZA and LR Act.
(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant papers on file. The learned Counsel for the State i.e. DGC (R) appeared and submitted that the reference being in favour of the State be accepted and the revision be allowed.In reply it is submitted that the refer­ence made by the Additional Commis­sioner is unjust and improper as such is liable to be rejected, that the learned DGC (R) has noted the date for 29-12-92 but intentionally he did not put his appearance only for lingering the case ; that the trial Court passed the order in accordance with law which is liable to be maintained ; that while the learned DGC (R) has noted the date so there was no need to issue notice and the Court has every right to decide the case since the Counsel has noted the date. In support of his contention he cited the case has reported in 1997 RD 450.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and pursuing the relevant papers on file, thebrief facts of the case are that Badri Prasad s/o Ramdeo instituted a suit under Section 229-B of UPZAandLR Act for declaring him as bhumidhar over the land in dispute as detailed down at the foot of the plaint. After institution of the suit notices were issued to other side and in response there of they appeared. During the course of hearing the case was dis­missed in default on 13-10-89 a restora­tion application was moved for recalling that order and the same was allowed; later on, on 17-12-92 an appointment was moved on behalf of Badri Prasad to ex­pedite the hearing of the case. The trial Court allowed the application and fixed for 29-12-92 for hearing and.on that very date the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by that order the state went in revision beforethe Commissioner, Faizabad Division, which has been heard and decided by the Additional Commis­sioner vide the order dated 18-3-97 wherein the aforesaid recommendation has been made to the Board.;