- (1.) S. R. Yadav, Member. This reference dated 9-10-97 has been made by the Additional Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly with the recommendation to set aside the order dated 14-3-96 passed by the trial Court in a case under Section 161 of Z. A. & L. R. Act and remanded the entire matter to the trial Court for deciding the same afresh.
(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that on the application of one Dalbinder Singh and others, the proceeding for exchange of land started wherein Khata No. 59, Plot No. 199/4 area 2. 225 hectare, Khata No. 70, Plot No. 199/4 area 2. 428 hectare and Khata No. 40, Plot No. 199/4m area 0. 405 hectare were sought to be exchanged from Khata No. 53, Plot No. 481/1 area 5. 058 hectare situate in village Kataiya Pandari, pergana Jahanabad, tahsil and district Pilibhit. Reports were obtained in the matter and the opposite party, Teja Singh, filed objection with regard to exchange of the disputed land. After considering the entire matter the trial Court refused the desired exchange by the order dated 14-3- 1996. Feeling aggrieved by that order a revision was preferred before the Commissioner, Bareilly which has been heard and the aforesaid recommendation has been made by the Additional Commissioner on 9-10-97, hence this reference. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant papers on file. The main points to be observed for exchange as in the present case are the rental value is more than 10% or not and whether the parties are in possession are not. In the instant matter it is undisputed that the rental value of the plots in question are less than 10%. It is also undisputed that the parties are in possession over the land in dispute to be exchanged. In this regard the statement of lekhpal was taken which is in favour of the exchange. The trial Court dealing with the matter recorded finding that the reasons for exchange were not explained as such the same was inviolation of Chapter XIV Rule 246 (4) of U. P. C. H. Rules; while the perusal of above mentioned provision shows that the said provision is only applicable when the provisions of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act is not applicable. In the circumstances I find that the trial Court did not apply its mind while recording such finding, in judicial matters sincere and clear minds should be applied, if it is not done the justice will not be dispense with properly, as the application of exchange shows that it was to consolidate the agriculture plots meaning thereby that by consolidating the plots the agriculture development was sought to be achieved, in such matters the revenue department should go to help the agriculturist which has not been done by the trial Court, while making the recommendation the learned Additional Commissioner has perhaps taken into consideration the above observation and has touched the main point involved in the matter. He has also based the finding on the authority reported in 1993 R. R. 36. Thus, I do not find any apparent illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner, and hence, the same is liable to be accepted. In view of the above, the reference is accepted, the revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 14-3-96 passed by the trial Court is set aside and the matter is sent back to the trial Court for decision afresh in the light of observations made above as well as in the recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner after giving the opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Reference accepted. .;