J.N. Dwivedi, J. - (1.) This Bench of two Members is constituted under order of Hon'ble Chairman to consider the legal issues referred to by a Member Shri Kaushal Kishore on 22-5-1985, since retired. The way he seeks an answer to a problem is unusual. Sitting alone and seized of a reference arising in a proceeding under Section 199 (4) Z.A. & L.R. Act, he submits directly to a Division Bench, Meerut to proffer answers to concerns and questions he formulates. On 5-7-1985 Meerut Bench requests Hon'ble Chairman, Board of Revenue to nominate Members. SEven year go by in utter neglect. On 7-5-1992 another Bench directs Registrar, Board of Revenue, to secure orders on the subject. Eventually the Bench of two Members is in session.
(2.) The facts putting forth the concerns in issue are : For cancellation of an allotment in favour of Dharam Singh's, an application under Section 198-(4), Z.A. & L.R. Act is moved by applicant Samay Singh in Collector's. On 12-4-1978. Additional Collector enters an order dismissing the application
(3.) Applicant Samay Singh lodges a revision in Commissioner's. On 28-10-1979 Additional Commissioner's submits a reference to allow the revisions and set aside order of Additional Collector dated 12-4-1970. The reference has not as ye been finally decided by Board or Revenue in view of this reference. The Bench is to proffer an answer to an acute concern reflected in the reference. It is apt to essay it as Hon'ble Member had it : "A ruling in 1981 AWC 63 (Revenue) lays down that the unauthorised occupation by any person does not change the character of vacant land for the purpose of Sections 195/197 of the Act. In the present case, there is slight distinction that the unauthorised possession on or before 30-6-1975 renders he occupant, if a member of scheduled caste and landless agricultural labourer, to be not liable to ejectment under Section 122-B and is deemed to be a sirdar the question arises what would be the effect of this deeming clause. While considering a case for cancellation of allotment could such a person be held to be a sirdar and so in spite of entry of parties of Gaon Sabha, should the land be deemed Gaon Sabha property until by correction or declaration an entry of sirdar/bhumidhar in favour of the occupant is made in the revenue record? This question appears to be important for deciding a number of similar cases, and therefore, I consider it proper to refer this to the Division Bench for Meerut Division for an answer." This is the perspective.;