S.R.YADAV, j. - (1.) THIS is a refer­ence dated 30-9-96 made by the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, arising out of proceedings under Section 122-B (4-f) of UPZA and LR Act, heard and decided by the SDO, Jalalpur, Faizabad on 10-2-92.
(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant papers on file. The learned Counsel for the revisionist mainly submitted that the ref­erence was in favour of the revisionist as such the same should be accepted, that the trials Court had no jurisdiction to declare any rights in a proceeding under Section 122-B (4-f) of UPZA and LR Act. He also attracted my attention towards the case law reported in 1994 RD 395. He further submitted that actually the appeal was preferred but prayer was made therein that if the same was not maintainable the same could be converted into revision and that by conversion the same into revision the instant reference has been made for accep­tance. He has also attracted my attention towards the application dated 27-1-92 and submitted that such a simple application was moved for declaration and was al­lowed as such the order itself was bad in law. In reply to above, the learned Coun­sel for the other side conceded on the point that no declaration could be made under Section 122-B (4-f) of UPZA and LR Act, but he submitted that the revision was not maintainable because firstly appeal was preferred ; he also submitted that Ram Asrey has no locus standi in the matter and opposite party was in possession over the disputed land.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the records it appears that on an applica­tion dated 27-1-92 the trial Court passed order dated 10-2-92 where by the opposite parties were declared as bhumidhar over the land in dispute as detailed down at the foot of the plaint which was challenged before Commissioner, Faizabad Division, wherein the aforesaid recommendation has been made by the learned Additional Commissioner.;