- (1.) S. R. Lakha, Member. This revision has been filed against the order dated 2-2-2001 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad in Revision No. 68/99-2000 arising out of proceedings under Section 143 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act.
(2.) BRIEFLY, facts are that an application under Section 143 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act was moved. Assistant Collector, First Class passed an order on 24-7-99. An appeal against this order was filed before the Additional Collector which was dismissed on 27-12-99. A revision was then filed before the learned Additional Commissioner which was allowed by the learned Additional Commissioner and orders of the Courts below were set aside. Feeling aggrieved by this order the present revision has been filed. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and seen the papers. The learned Counsel for the revisionist has argued that after the decision of the first appeal the order passed by the Court was final and revision filed by the opposite party before the learned Additional Commissioner was not maintainable. This argument is not sustainable in law. According to Schedule II in proceedings under Section 143 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act an application for declaration would lie to the Assistant Collector Incharge of the division and thereafter a first appeal would lie to the Collector. The provision of Second Appeal has been deleted but this would not mean that the provision of filing a revision is not available. Section 333 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act provides that a revision can be filed in cases where no appeal is provided. This argument of the learned Counsel fails.
(3.) THE learned Additional Commissioner has discussed the matter in detail and passed a correct order. I do not see any reason to interfere with his order. Revision has no force and is dismissed accordingly. Revision dismissed. .;