S.P.PANDEY, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), preferred against the judgment and order, dated 26-2-1998, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, in Revision Petition No. 3 of 1997-98, arising out of the judgment and order, dated 5-9-1997, passed by the learned trial Court, in proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts, giving rise to the instant revision petition, are that on the complaint of Sulekh Singh and Mukh Ram for cancellation of the lease, granted in favour of the revisionist, proceeding under Section 198(4) of the Act, were initiated against the allottees on the ground of irregular allotment as well as the allottees, being not eligible for allotment. On notice, the allottees contested the proceedings, denying the allegations and inter-alia pleading that the allotment was made to them as per the Rules on the Subject. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite formalities, rejected the application, moved by the complainants and maintained the lease, in question, vide its order, dated 5-9-1997. Aggrieved by this order, Sulekh etc. went up in revision before the learned Additional Commissioner, which was allowed and the order of the learned trial Court was set aside, cancelling the lease, granted in favour of the allottees vide his order dated 26-2-1998. It is against this order that the instant revision petition has been filed by Smt. Ram Rati etc. before the Board. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the records, on file. Assailing the impugned order, the learned Counsel for the revisionist has contended that since the question of law in respect of a person, being aggrieved, can be raised at any stage, the learned lower revisional Court committed illegality in holding otherwise; that since Sulekh Singh was a Government Servant and does not come within the definition of eligible person, aggrieved by the allotment, the learned trial Court was perfectly justified in rejecting his application under Section 198(4) of the Act and the learned Additional Commissioner has erred in holding otherwise; that the impugned order is no order in the eyes of law, as the lease was granted in favour of the revisionists, in consonance with the provisions of law on the subject; that since the land, in dispute, was previously a talab, which was changed by the authorities concerned as a cultivable land and the same was allotted to the revisionist, no illegality or material irregularity has been committed in granting the same to them and the learned lower revisional Court has grossly erred in cancelling the same; that in any view of the matter, the impugned order is illegal and perverse as the revision, filed by a person not aggrieved, was not maintainable and therefore, the same cannot be allowed to sustain and this revision petition deserves to be allowed. In support, reliance has been placed on the case laws, reported in 1998 (1) CRC 429; 1997 (1) CRC 87 and 145 and 1996 CRC 417. The learned Counsel for the opposite party, in reply, has submitted that the learned Additional Commissioner was perfectly justified in rendering the impugned order, as the allotment, in question, was found to be irregular, as changing the nature of the land was against the provisions of law; that the Talab is a land of public utility, which cannot be allotted to any person with non-transferable rights; that the requirements of law were also not observed as per Rule 173 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules and therefore, the impugned order was correctly passed by the learned lower revisional Court with which no interference is called for and this revision petition deserves dismissal outright.
(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the arguments advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also scanned the records on file. A bare perusal of the record clearly reveals that the learned Additional Commissioner has observed in his impugned order that since the revisionist has not taken the plea of the complainant being not an aggrieved person before the learned trial Court, this point has no force as one of the complainants, Mukh Ram who was eligible for the allotment was certainly an aggrieved person. In respect of the merits of the case, it has further been observed that changing the nature of talab into cultivable land, was not proper, as the SDO, who had passed the order, was not competent to do so and therefore, the same was aginst the provisions of law. Moreover, a pond cannot be allotted to any person with non-transferable rights. It is also not out of the place to mention here that the procedure, adopted for the allotment, in question was also against the requirements of law, as munadi was not made in accordance with the Rules. As per Rule 173 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules, such munadi should have been done before at least seven days of the meeting for the purpose.;