A.P. Sahi, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Ramendra Asthana learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition are that the Petitioner is a complainant and an objector apart from the Land Management Committee of the Gaon Sabha, in a matter relating to grant of housing leases to the Respondent Nos. 3 to 11 under the provisions of Section 122C of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act. The lease was granted ,and after the grant of the lease, subsequently, the succeeding Land Management Committee and the Petitioner, along with two others, filed an application before the Collector for cancellation of the lease. The lease was cancelled on 21.7.2008. The contesting Respondents filed a revision before the learned Additional Commissioner. The same was pending and they also filed a writ petition before this Court which was disposed of on 9.9.2008 directing the learned Additional Commissioner to dispose of the same in accordance with law. The revision was allowed on 26.10.2010. The Land Management Committee and the State both filed an application for review of the order which was rejected on 19.5.2011. The Petitioner who was a complainant in the proceedings has come up before this Court assailing the said remand order mainly on the ground that the revision filed by the Respondents before the learned Additional Commissioner was not maintainable under the provisions aforesaid namely Section 122C of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Reliance has been placed by Sri Ramendra Asthana learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Sumratiya v. Commissioner, Moradabad Division Moradabad reported in, 1996 RD 163 and the decision in the case of Rajeshwar Upadhyay v. State of U.P. Reported in : 2005 (98) RD 768.
(3.) LEARNED Standing counsel on the other hand has opposed this prayer and contends that the revision was very much maintainable in view of the provisions aforesaid and he has relied on two decisions namely Smt. Bhoo Devi v. Board of Revenue reported in, 1994 RD 92 and the case of Janab v. State of U.P. Reported in, 2001 (92) 533. He submits that the reliance placed by the Petitioner in the case of Rajeshwar Upadhyay (supra) cannot be countenanced as it being a later decision of the year 2005, does not take notice of either of these decisions. In the case of Smt. Sumratiya the court had only made observations in para 10 that the revision would not be maintainable under Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act but did not finally lay down the law. Learned standing counsel therefore submits that the law having been correctly explained in the case of Janab (supra),the same deserves to be followed holding that the revision is maintainable.;