- (1.) S. P. Pandey, Member. This is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA & LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), preferred against the judgment and order, dated 5-3-1990, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, in Revision Petition No. 195/101 of 1985, dismissing the same and confirming the judgment and order, dated 20-7-1985 passed by the learned trial Court on a restoration application filed in a suit under Section 161 of the Act.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts, giving rise to the instant revision petition are that in proceedings under Section 161 of the Act, agreeing with the tehsil report, the learned trial Court passed the orders accordingly on 21-2-1984. Thereafter, on 30-5-1984, an application for restoration was moved by the revisionist, praying for recall of the order, dated 21-2-1984 along with an affidavit. The learned trial Court vide its order, dated 20-7-1985, rejected this application. Phool Chand went up in revision before the learned Additional Commissioner which, too, was dismissed vide his order, dated 5-3-1990 and therefore, 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 revisionist and have also perused the record on file. None responded for the opposite party despite due notice and repeated calls at the time of the hearing and therefore, this Court was left with no option, except to proceed ex-parte. Assailing the impugned orders, the learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that since the order, dated 21-2-1984 has been passed by the learned trial Court without affording due opportunity to the revisionist, the impuned order is bad in law; that since the land in dispute is not the property of the Gaon Sabha nor is it land within the meaning of Section 3 (14) of the Act, the ex-parte order, dated 21-2-1984 passed by the learned trial Court was clearly without jurisdiction and was liable to be recalled; that by not doing so, the learned trial Court has grossly erred in law because local inspection and preparation of a site-plan is mandatory in law; that the impugned order no order in the eyes of law, as the expunction, allowed by it on 21-2- 1984 was clearly void and illegal because permission under Rule 110-A of the UPZA & LR Rules is mandatory in law; that since the restoration application was well within time from the date of knowledge of the ex-parte order and no limitation is prescribed for filing an application under Section 151 CPC, the learned Courts below have grosssly erred in rejecting the same; that since it is the settled principle of law that lenient view is taken in the matter of restoration, the impugned orders are bad in law in taking a rigid and strict view of the matter; that in any view of the matter, the learned Courts below have acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of their jurisdiction as well as failed to exercise a jurisdiction legally, so vested in them and therefore, the impugned orders, being illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction, cannot be allowed to sustain and this revision petition very richly deserves to be allowed. I have closely and carefully considered the arguments advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and have also scaned the record on file. A bare perusal of the record clearly reveals that after the order, dated 21-2-84 was passed on the basis of the report of the Naib-Tehsildar dated 3-2- 1984, the revisionist, Phool Chand moved an application for setting aside the aforesaid order, on 30-5- 1984 alonwith an affidavit. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties, concerned, did not find any illegalaity or material irregularity in the proceedings under Section 161 of the Act as the same was based upon the resolution of the LMC and the report of the Naib-Tehsildar in this respect. It also came to the conclusion that the application in question is barred by limitation and no explanation for the delay, caused in filing, the same has been furnished and therefore, rejected the same, vide its order, dated 20- 7-1985. The learned Additional Commissoner has concurred with the views, expressed by it and has dismissed the revision, vide his order, dated 5-3-1990. Both the learned Courts below have dealt with the matter in question on very logically and analytically in correct perspective of law and therefore, the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist, who has miserably failed to substantiate his claim, are rather untenable for the same reason. The restoration application has very rightly been rejected, as the same is, in fact, time barred and no explanation for the delay caused in filing the same is forthcoming. No error of law, fact or jurisdiction has either been committed by the learned Courts below in rendering the impugned order and therefore, I do not find any justification to interfere with the same and as such this revision petition having no force, very rich deserves dismissal outright.
(3.) IN veiw of the above, this revision petition being devoid 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. .;