- (1.) GIRDHARI Lal, J. This revision has been filed against the order of the learned Additional Commissioner, Faizabad dated 9- 12-83.
(2.) BRIEF facts of this case is that Putti Lal and others have filed an application under Section 198 (4) of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act against Devi Ram and others on the ground that the disputed land Plot No. 700 is a public utility land and the applicants are using this land as Khaliyan and Gandhi Chabutara is also situated on this disputed land. A report was obtained from Tehsil and after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties the learned Collector Bahraich vide his order dated 8-9-1981 has rejected the application filed by present revisionist. Being aggrieved by this order a revision was preferred before the learned Additional Commissioner and revision was also dismissed on the ground that compromise has been filed between the parties. Being aggrieved by this order of the learned Additional Commissioner this present revision has been filed by Putti Lal and others. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the original records. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that it is admitted fact that the disputed land is a public utility land and Collector Bahraich has specifically mentioned in this order that by Ordinance 15 of 1981 dated 10-11-80 leases of public utility land cannot be cancelled but the learned Additional Commissioner has wrongly dismissed the revision on the ground that compromise has been arrived between the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that no retrospective effect of Ordinance can be treated and if there was an ordinance its effect should be prospective in effect. It has been argued that Tehsil report specifically mentions that the disputed land is a public utility land. It has been argued that no compromise can be accepted against the expressed provisions of law.
(3.) IT has been argued by the learned counsel for the opposite- party that applicants revisionists are not aggrieved persons. If they claimed the disputed land as their own land they can filed a regular suit before the competent authorities. After perusal of the original record it is clear that the disputed land is public utility land in the khasra and tehsil report also specifically mentions that land is being used as Khaliyan and Gandhi Chabutara is also situated on the disputed land. This fact has not been denied by the present revisionist, and no evidence has been filed that this disputed land is not being used as public utility land. Therefore the disputed land is public utility land and patta was illegally granted to the opposite parties.;