- (1.) N. S. Ravi, J. This is a revision preferred against the judgment and order dated 11-6-1987 passed by Additional Commissioner, Lalitpur under Section 198 (4) of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. By this order the learned Additional Collector presuming that the land in dispute was a Patta land allotted under Section 195 of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Rules to the revisionists fathers has cancelled the same on the ground that at the time of the so called allotment the allottees Dharam Dass and Kamlapati were not eligible for allotment as they were having more than 12. 5 acres of land each.
(2.) FROM the perusal of the impugned order it is also clear that the proceedings before the lower Court were initiated suo moto. The contention of the revisionists is that the land in dispute was not a Gaon Sabha land and was never allotted to Dharam Dass and Kamlapati. On the contrary, the fact is that Dharam Dass and Kamlapati were recorded as sirdars prior to 1360 Fasli and in due course of time they were declared as bhumidhar of the same by order of Assistant Collector, First Class Mahrauni, sub-division in Suit No. 319/85-86 under Section 229-B of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act vide order dated 27-12-1986. It is also the contention of the revisionists that the learned lower Court did not consider this fact despite the clear objections raised by Dharam Dass and Kamlapati. It is also their contention that there is no record with the concerned Lekhpal or the Land Management Committee which can prove that the land in dispute was ever allotted on Patta to the revisionist's fathers and the learned lower Court has committed an error of law by holding that the revisionists have failed to prove that the land in dispute was not allotted to them on patta, as this was the duty of the Gaon Sabha or the State to prove this fact and not of the revisionists. On 18-9-2003 while this case was argued before this Court, an order was passed to the effect that the revisionists should file a legible certified copy of the order dated 27-12-1986 and also relevant proof to show that this order has become final and no proceedings whatsoever is pending before any Court of law. This was also directed that the revisionists should clarify as to why they did not produce the order dated 27-12-1986 before the learned lower Court. The case was fixed for 25-11-2003 but mean while an application was moved on 29-9-2003 requesting the Court that the case be decided earlier because both the parties have submitted their arguments. On this request this case was fixed for 8-10-2003.
(3.) THE revisionists have filed an affidavit alongwith an application wherein it has been stated that the order dated 27-12-1986 has got finality as no revision or appeal has been filed against that order in any Court of law. It was also stated that even before the learned lower Court this fact was clearly brought to its notice alongwith the copy of the order dated 27-12-1986. So there is no need to call for the record of the suit under Section 229-B of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act pertaining to the order dated 27-12-1986. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionists and learned D. G. C. (Revenue ).;