- (1.) S. P. Pandey, Member. This is a revision petition, preferred against the order dated 27-7-1993, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, in revision petition No. 145 of 1992/jaunpur, dismissing the same and confirming the order, dated 8-6-1992, passed by the learned trial Court in proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA & LR Act (hereinafter, referred to as the Act ).
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that on the application of Pagudhari etc. under Section 198 (4) of the Act for the cancellation of the lease, granted in favour of the revisionist, Tilakdhari proceedings for the same were initiated against the allottee. It was inter-alia pleaded by the applicant that since the land, in dispute, is of public utility being sports and games spot, Devasthan and Ram Lila ground and the revisionist was not an eligible person for the same, the allotment in question is irregular and should be cancelled. On notice, the allottee contested the proceedings, denying the allegations and inter-alia pleading that since the land,in dispute is neither of public utility nor is there any irregularity in the allotment of the same and the revisionist is in possession of the same, the same is not irregular. After hearing the parties, concerned, local inspection was made by the learned trial Court in respect of which tehsil report is on the record. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite formalities, rejected the application, moved by Pagudhari etc. and maintained the lease in question, vide its order, dated 8-6-1992. The applicant went up in revision before the learned Additional Commissioner, who has dismissed the same vide his order, dated 27-7-1993. It is against these orders that the instant revision petition has been preferred by him before the Board. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record on file. Assailing the impugned orders, the learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that since the land, in dispute, is covered by the provisions of Section 132 of the Act, being talab and Bhita etc. , the allotment of such a land is prohibited in law; that the learned Courts below have grossly erred in ignoring the oral evidence, on record, as from the evidence on record, it is fully established that the land in dispute is for public purposes; that the impugned orders are no orders in the eyes of law, as the same is based upon the local inspection report, which cannot form the basis therefor, that since the provisions of Rules 173 to 177 of the UPZA & LR Rules were not followed for the grant of the lease, in question, the same is irregular and is liable to be cancelled, that the impugned orders bad in law for the non-consideration of the fact that there were many landless agricultural labourers belonging to scheduled caste community and desirous of the allotment and residing in the circles; that in any view of the matter, the impugned orders are against the facts and evidence on record which cannot be alowed to sustain and therefore, this revision petition deserves to be allowed. The learned Counsel for the opposite party, in reply, urged that since the applicant-revisionist is not an aggrieved person, has no locus standi to move such application; that since no positive evidence was led to prove the land in dispute, being for public purposes, the lease in questions, is not irregular and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and in view of the documentary evidence, on the record and local inspection made by the learned trial Court, the learned Courts below were perfectly justified in rejecting the application of the revisionist for the cancellation of the lease, in question and as such, this revision petition, having no force, deserves dismissal outright. I have closely and carefully considered the arguments, advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also scanned the record, on file. A bare perusal of the record on file clearly reveals that the learned trial Court, after hearing the parties concerned, made a local inspection of the land, in dispute and a tehsil report is on the record. After completing the requisite formalities, it came to the conclusion that since there is no positive evidence on record in favour of land in dispute being a public utility land and as per its local inspection, the same has not been found to be so, no case for initating proceedings for the cancellation of the lease in question, is made out and therefore, it rejected the application of the revisionist. Both the learned Courts below, have dealt with the matter, in question at length and have very logically and analytically arrived at a conclusion that the land, in dispute, is not a land, covered by the provisions of Section 132 of the Act. This view also finds support by the local inspection, made by the learned trial Court and therefore, I entirely agree with the views, expressed by the learned Courts below and as such, the contentions of the learned Counsel for the revisionist, who has miserably failed to substantiate his claim, are rather untenable for the same reason. The revisionist has, in fact, bitterly failed to adduce any positive and cogent evidence in support of his claim and thererfore, I still fail to understand as to how the revisionist is an aggrieved person and his locus standi for moving an application under Section 198 (4) of the Act for the cancellation of the lease in question. No illegality or material irregularity has either been committed by the learned Courts below in the exercise of their jurisdiction nor is there any justification for any interference with the impugned orders by this Court, at this second revisional stage. The learned Courts below, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as well as on the evidence on record, were perfectly justified in rendering the impugned orders and therefore, this revision petition, having no force, very richly deserves dismissal, outright.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, this revision petition being devold of merits, is, accordingly, dismissed and the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts, below are hereby, confirmed and maintained. Let records be returned forthwith, to the Courts concerned. Revision dismissed. .;