- (1.) S. N. Shukla, J. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 28-7-99 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Bareilly preferred against the order dated 31-10-96 passed by Upper Collector, Philibhit in Case No. 114/97-88 under Section 198 (4) of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act.
(2.) BRIEFLY, the facts are that on the report of the Tahsildar notice was issued under Section 198 (4) of the U. P. Z. A and L. R. Act to the revisionist, on the ground that he is not resident of the village where the land in dispute is situate and as such the lease granted in his favour may be cancelled. No objection was filed and order was passed ex-parte on 17-2-88. Revisionist filed a restoration which was allowed on 5-10-88 and the revisionist was held to be bhumidhar with non-transferable rights of the land in dispute and was in possession of the same on account of the fact that he was a member of Schedule Caste from before 30-6-85, and the notice issued against him was discharged, on 15-4-96, Opposite Party No. 2 and Salig Ram filed a restoration alongwith an affidavit claiming themselves to be owner of the land in dispute on the basis of a lease executed on 30-6-93. They prayed that the name of Bhagwannu may be expunged from the revenue records. Bhagwannu filed an objection against the restoration filed by the Opposite Party No. 2. The trial Court cancelled the allotment and observed that accrual of rights under Section 122-B (4-F) of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act be ascertained. The learned Additional Commissioner by its order dated 28-7-99 allowed the revision and restoration filed by Opposite Party No. 2 and another and remanded the case to the trial Court for decision afresh on merits. The present revision has been filed against the order of the learned Additional Commissioner. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. From a perusal of the record, it appears that the present revisionist Bhagwannu, claimed rights on the ground that he belong to Scheduled Caste, that he continued to be in possession over the land in question from before 30-6-85 and that the did not possess land in excess of the prescribed limit. The proceedings were in progress so long as the claims of Bhagwannu that he was entitled to obtain the benefit under Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act was being considered by the Court, it could not be deemed that the land in question was a vacant land. So long as the rights of Bhagwannu were not disallowed and the property was held to have vested in the Gaon Sabha, there was no question of the land being allotted to any one. The learned trial Court was perfectly justified in passing an order cancelling the so called lease in favour of Opposite Party No. 2 and another. The learned Additional Commissioner, has not considered the matter in its proper perspective and has gone wrong in remanding the case. In the circumstances of the present case the order passed by learned trial Court was perfectly in order and did not call for any interference in revision. The learned Additional Commissioner acted illegally in the exercise of its jurisdiction upsetting that order and passing an order of remand. His order cannot be sustained.
(3.) THE view of what has been discussed above, the revision is allowed, the order of the learned Additional Commissioner dated 28-7-99 is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored. Revision allowed. .;