S.P.PANDEY - (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 judgment and order dated 16-2-2000 passed by the learned Colleetor, Bijnor in case No. 149/97 under Section 198 (4) of the Act.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that on the application moved by Pradeep Singh and others, proceedings underSection 198 (4) of the Act for cancellation of the leases granted in favour of the opposite parties Tcjpal and others were initiated. The learned Additional Collector Bijnor after completing the requisite formalities, by means of his order dated 29-12-1995, rejected this application which gave rise to a revision petition. The learned Addition­al Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad made a reference to the Board with his recommendation that the order passed by the learned Additional Collec­tor, Bijnor be set aside and the leases in question be cancelled. The Board of Revenue after analysing, discussing and considering all the relevant facts and cir­cumstances of the case, set aside the im­pugned order and remanded the case to the learned trial Court for decision afresh according to law. On remand the learned Collector, Bijnor after completing the req­uisite formalities set aside the allotment order dated 1-10-1994. It is against this order that this revision petition has been preferred before the Board. 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 impugned order is no order in the eyes of law as the learned trial Court has not complied with thedirections given by the Board in its remand order ; that the allotments in question were validity made after observing the proce­dure laid down for the purpose and the learned trial Court has erred in setting aside the allotment order dated 1-10-1994 ; that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are perverse in law as the same have been arrived at without taking into account the evidence on record ; that the impugned order passed by the learned Collector, Bijnor is erroneous and has in the eyes of law and as such the same cannot besustainedanddeservestobeset aside. In reply the learned Counsel for the opposite party submitted that since the land in dis­pute is a land of public utility under Sec­tion 132 of the Act, the learned Court below has very rightly cancelled the leases in question ; that the learned trial Court was perfectly justified in passing the im­pugned order which has been passed after a full and proper appreciation of evidence on record and consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances of the instant case; that the application moved by the revisionist was very well maintainable as the complainant wereaggrieved persons and the learned Court below did not commit any illegality or material irregularity in passing the impugned order and as such this revision petition has no force and deserves to be dismissed outright. In support, reliance has been placed on the case laws reported in AIR 1982 SC 1249, 1987 RD 81 (BR) and 1994 RD 206 (BR).
(3.) I have closely and carefully ex­amined the submissions made before me by the learned Counsel for the parties and the relevant records on file. A bare perusal of the record makes it amply clear that the learned trial Court has properly and thoroughly analysed, considered and dis­cussed the relevant and material facts cir­cumstances and the evidence on record of the instant case and has recorded a clear and categorical finding to the effect that the order in respect of the allotments in question deserves to be set aside as the same has been passed without observing the requisite formalities prescribed by law. No munadi as required by law has been done nor were khasra numbers disclosed in the agenda the which compliance of mandatory in law. Moreover, priority list of eligible persons for allotment was also not prepared properly as the names of aggrieved persons could not find place in this list. It is also noticeable that Jagdish Lal who is said to have made the munadi, has filed two affidavits which are self con­tradictory and as such no credence can be placed on his version. As a matter of fact, plot No. 371 is recorded as TALAB which is a land of public utility under Section 132 of the Act and as such the same cannot be allotted.;