S.P.PANDEY, J. - (1.) THESE are two revision petitions under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Revision Petition No. 34 of 1997-98/JP Nagar has been preferred by Gurmeet Singh against the judgment and order dated 8-1-1998, while the Revision Petition No. 30 of 2000-01/JP Nagar has been filed by Harvinder Singh against the judgment and order dated 30-7-1998, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, in Appeal Nos. 123 of 1996-97, dismissing the appeal, and 37-B of 1997-98, allowing the appeal respectively, arising out of the judgment and order dated 10-2- 1997 and 4-8-1993 passed by the learned trial Court in Case No. 13 of 1993 under Section 189/167 of the Act. Both the revision petitions are being decided together. The revision No. 34 of 1997-98, J.P. Nagar shall be the leading case.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the instant revision petitions are that on the report of the tehsildar, concerned, dated 18-5-1993, the learned trial Court declared the land, in dispute, as abandoned and belonging to the State of U.P. and ordered for recording of the name accordingly, vide its order, dated 4-8-1993. On 25-7-1995, an application on behalf of Jaswant Singh, through Mukhtar-e-am, Amarjit Kaur was moved for recalling the order, dated 4-8-1993, being ex-parte and restoring the case to its original number and for disposal of the same, on merits. The learned trial Court, vide its order, dated 10- 2-1997, rejected this application. Aggrieved by these orders, two appeals were filed before the learned Additional Commissioner, who has dismissed the Appeal No. 123 and allowed the Appeal No. 37-B, vide her order, dated 8-1-98 and 30-7-1998, respectively. It is against these two orders that the instant revision petitions have been filed before the Board. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and have also perused the record, on file. Assailing the impugned orders, the learned Counsel for the revisionist has contended that since Article 123 of the Indian Limitation Act would apply to the instant restoration application moved by Jaswant Singh, the impugned order, dated 10-2-1997 is illegal and perverse, as no summons were served on the applicant and therefore, the application for restoration moved by him, was within time from the date of knowledge of the ex parte order dated 4-8-1993, that since Jaswant Singh was the grand-father of Harvinder Singh, minor, whose parents died and Manjit Kaur, being his maternal- grand-mother, it was only Jaswant Singh alone who could be the guardian of the minor and not Manjit Kaur; that on 8-1-1998, allowing the substitution and appointing Manjit Kaur as guardian of the minor is totally against the provisions of law and illegal, against which Revision Petition No. 34 has been filed which deserves to be allowed; that since the Appeal No. 123 had already been dismissed on 8-1-1998, allowing the Appeal No. 37-B on 30-7-1998, by the learned Additional Commissioner, was wholly illegal and against the established principles of law, as the same was not maintainable, in law, being filed on 17-2-1998; that in view of the settled principle of law that the Court should exercise its discretion in favour of hearing and not shutting out hearing, the impugned order, dated 8-1-1998, passed in Appeal No. 123 was no order in the eyes of law; that in any view of the matter and in view of the aforesaid contentions, both the revision petitions deserve to be allowed, and the orders, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner and the orders, dated 10-2-1997 and 4-8- 1993, passed by the learned trial Court are liable to be set aside. In support, reliance has been paced on the case laws, reported in 1986 SCC 512; AIR 1987 SC 1353; 1996 RD 307; 1998 RD 80.
(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the submissions, made before me by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned D.G.C. (R). I have also perused the record on file. A bare perusal of the record clearly reveals that in the instant case, orders have been passed, in haste by the learned Courts below. The substitution of the name of Harvinder Singh through Manjit Kaur, his maternal-grand-mother as his guardian is also a point to be looked into carefully, specially incorrect perspective of law when his grand-father was alive. The restoration application moved by Jaswant Singh through his Mukhtar-e-Aam Amarjit Kaur was also disposed of, in haste, as in view of the settled principle of law, the Court should exercise its discretion, in favour of hearing and not to shut out hearing. In view of the above and the contentions, made before me, by the learned Counsel for the revisionist, to my mind, it is rather a fit case, to be remanded to the learned trial Court for decision, afresh, on merits, according to law, after affording an opportunity of hearing and adducing evidence, if any, to the parties, concerned and therefore, I need not enter into the merits of this case, at this stage.;