- (1.) THIS is a revision petition, preferred against the judgment and order, dated 8-2-1991 passed the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, arising out of an order dated 24-10-1989 passed by the learned trial Court in the proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the U. P. Z. A & LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that these proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act were initiated, on the tehsil report for cancellation of the lease, granted in favour of the revisionist for an area 6. 14 acres, on the ground of the fact that the lease holder was minor at the time of the aforesaid allotment an others minor grounds. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite formalities, found that the revisionist was minor at the time of the aforesaid allotment and in Addition to this, his family had sufficient land before the aforesaid allotment and canceled the aforesaid lease on 24-10- 1989. Aggrieved by this order, a revision was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner has upheld the aforesaid order, passed by the learned trial Court and dismissed the revision too on 8-2- 1991. 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 at the time of the aforesaid allotment the revisionist (lease holder) was an adult and was fully eligible for the aforesaid allotment, but the learned Courts, below have erred in law by not applying their minds to the facts and circumstances of the instant case and have passed an erroneous, perverse and illegal impugned orders; that the revisionist is in possession of the disputed land since 1970 as lease holder; that the land of the father and elder brother cannot be considered in calculating the holding, held by the lease holder, as the revisionist was major and he and his family cannot be included in the family of his father and as such, the aforesaid impugned orders passed by the learned Courts, below, be set aside. In reply, the learned DGC (R), appearing for the State of UP, submitted that the concurrent finding of fact, recorded by the learned Courts below be maintained, as the lease holder holder was minor at the time of the aforesaid allotment. I have careful and closely examined the submissions, made by the learned Counsel for the parties and the relevant records, on file. On a close examination of the record, it is crystal clear that at the time of the aforesaid allotment, the lease holder (revisionist) is proved to be minor. The learned trial Court has properly analysed, discussed and considered the relevant and material acts and circumstances of the instant case and has clearly drawn a conclusion that the lease holder was minor at the time of the aforesaid allotment. The learned lower revisional Court has also examined the points at issue, in correct perspective of law and has held that the lease holder (revisionist) was not eligible for the aforesaid allotment, as be was minor at the time of allotment. In addition to this, a perusal of the records also reveals that he had sufficient land before the aforesaid allotment and as such, the learned trial Court has rightly cancelled the aforesaid lease, granted in favour of the revisionist. The learned lower revisional Court has also examined the matter in question in correct perspective of law and has correctly upheld the aforesaid order, passed by the learned trial Court. I see no reason to dis-agree with the aforesaid conclusion, drawn by the learned Courts, below and to my mind, the aforesaid impugned order, dated 8-2-1991 is just, proper, sustainable well-founded and wholly warranted in law and as such, they must be maintained.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid discussions, I come to the conclusion that this revision petition, having no force, is liable to be dismissed and the orders, passed by the learned Courts, below, deserve to be maintained. No force is found in the contentions, raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist. In consequence, this revision petition is accordingly, dismissed and the aforesaid impugned orders, passed by the learned Courts, below, are here by upheld and sustained. Let records be returned forthwith to the Courts, concerned. Revision dismissed .;