S.P.PANDEY, J. - (1.) 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 15-3-1995, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in revision Petition No. 26/64 of 1993-94/Hamirpur, dismissing the same and confirming the judgment and order, dated 28-10-1993, passed by the learned trial Court in proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts, giving rise to the instant revision petition are that on the application of Achhey Lal, proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act were initiated against the allottee for cancellation of lease granted in his favour on the ground of irregular allotment. On notice, the allottee, Arvind Kumar contested the proceedings, denying the allegations and inter alia pleading that the proceedings, in question, are not maintainable in view of the fact that the complainant is not an aggrieved person and the LMC, concerned has not been made a party to it. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite formalities, rejected the application, moved by Achhey Lal, vide its judgment and order, dated 28-10-1993, against which a revision petition was preferred by him before the learned Additional Commissioner, which too stood dismissed, vide judgment and order, dated 15-3-1995, passed by him and therefore, it is against these orders that the instant revision petition been preferred by him before the Board. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record on file. Assailing the impugned orders, the learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that since the judicial mind has not been applied to the law and facts of the case, in question, by the learned Courts below, they have committed manifest illegality and irregularity in rejecting the application of the complainant under Section 198 (4) of the Act, which has rather resulted in mis-carriage of justice that the impugned orders are no orders in the eyes of law, as the learned Courts below have ignored to consider the documentary evidence on record; that since during the consolidation operations, Plot No. 885, in dispute, was declared chakout, the same was the bhumidhari land of the revisionist and the learned Courts, below, have committed gross illegality in ommiting to consider this vital documentary evidence on record and holding the land, in dispute, as the property of the Gaon Sabha, concerned; that since the revisionist is bhumidhar of the land in dospute, the Gaon Sabha, concerned had no authority in law to execute a Patta for the same in favour of the opposite party in respect of the land in dispute, which was not vacant and therefore, the Patta in question, is itself illegal; that since the proceedings laid down under Rule 178-A of the UPZA and LR Rules have not been followed, the impugned order is bad in law, as the same is based upon the report of the tehsil authorities; that in any view of the matter, since the Patta in question is illegal invalid ab-initio, the impugned orders are illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction, which cannot, at any stretch of imagination be allowed to sustain and this revision petition, therefore, very richly deserves to be allowed. In support, reliance has been placed on the case laws, reported in 1994 RD 206, 1991 RD 317. The learned Counsel for the opposite party, in reply urged that since the land, in dispute, is recorded as navin parti in the revenue records, it is the property of the Gaon Sabha, concerned, which had every power to execute a lease in favour of the Opposite Party No. 1; that the complainant is not an eligible person, much less to say an aggrieved person and therefore, his application is not at all maintainable; that the Patta in question was granted validly to the Opposite Party No. 1 and in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the learned Courts, below, were perfectly justified in rendering the impugned orders and therefore, this revision petition having no force, very richly deserves dismissal, outright.
(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the arguments, advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also scanned the record on file. The crux of the matter in question is whether or not the Gaon Sabha/LMC, concerned had any authority to execute a lease and whether or not the same was granted validily. It has also to be examined whether or not the complainant was an eligible person and his application was maintainable. It has come on the record that the land in dispute is recorded as Navin Parti in the village revenue records and therefore, the learned Courts below were perfectly justified in holding the same as the property of the Gaon Sabha, concerned of which a Patta could very well be executed. It has been observed by them that for the validity of the Patta, it is not sufficient to say that the land in dispute contains a well and fields of his co-tenants are adjacent to the same. Since the title of the revisionist to the land, in dispute, is not established from the record and the LMC, concerned, which is a mandatory party to the proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act, has not been arrayed as such, his application was rightly held to be not maintainable, having no force. So far as the formalities in respect of the grant of Patta is concerned, both the learned Courts, below, are satisfied that the lease, in question, has been validly granted after following the procedure, laid down for the same and therefore, I am satisfied that both the learned Courts, below, were perfectly justified in rejecting the application of the revisionist. The contentions of the learned Counsel for the revisionist, who has miserably failed to substantiate his claim are rather untenable for the same reason and the case laws, cited by him are also of no help to the revisionist for the simple reason that the facts of the instant case are rather quite different from those of the reported cases and therefore, I am of the considered opinion that this revision petition, having no force, very richly deserves dismissal outright, as no illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction has been committed by the learned Courts, below.;