S.P.PANDEY, j. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of UPZA and LR Act ( here in after in short referred to as the Act) preferred against the judgment and order dated 30-3-1998 passed by the learned lower revisional Court arising out of an order dated 15-9-1994 passed by the learned trial Court on the tehsil report of the same date.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the then tchsildar Nagina, district Binjor submitted a report dated 15-9-1994 to the SDO concerned seeking his ap­proval concerning some modification in the earlier order dated 13-9-93 passed by the learned SDO. The learned SDO con­cerned to the aforesaid proposal of the tehsildar concerned the same day. Ag­grieved by this order a revision was preferred. The learned Additional Com­missioner has dismissed the aforesaid revision on 30-3-1998. Hence this second revision petition. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the records on file. For the revisionist it was contended that with out ATany notice and opportunity of hearing the SDO set aside the lease on 15-9-1994 and as such the aforesaid order is ex parte one ; that the revisionist is landless agricultural labourer who is in possession over the suit land and using the same for agricultural purposes ; that the LMC concerned has not been impleaded and the required en­quiry which is mandatory has also not been made and arbitrarily the revisionist has been deprived of the proposed lease which was being granted in his favour and as such the revision be allowed and the aforesaid arbitrary and illegal order be set aside. In support of his contentions he has cited the case laws reported in 1987 RD 287, 1989 RD 284; 1986 RD 261; 1994 RD 92 and 99 ALJ 169. In repay the learned DGC (R) urged that the orders passed by the learned Courts below be maintained.
(3.) I have carefully and closely ex­amined the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and the relevant records on file. On a close scrutiny of the records it is abundantly clear that the SDO concerned had approved the proposal for granting the leases to the certain allottees vide his order dated 13-9-1994. But on the report dated 15-9-1994 submitted by the Tehsildar concerned necessary modifica­tions were approved vide his order dated 15-9-1994 as certain plots were recorded as Rasta, Talub, graveyard, Nali etc. The learned lower revisional Court has rightly dismissed the revision as no patent error or law or jurisdiction has been committed by it. To my mind, the aforesaid order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner is quite just proper and in consonance with the provisions of law. I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the case laws referred to by him are of no avail to the revisionist.;