S.P.PANDEY - (1.) THIS is a revision petition against the judgment and order dated 19-2-1996 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi in appeal No. 4/17 of 1994-95, arising out of an order dated 16-1-1995, passed by the learned trial Court in a case under Section 122-D of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), dismissing the appeal as not maintainable.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that the plaintiff, Daya Ram instituted a suit under Section 122-D of the Act against Bharat Lal, for restoration of possession of his allotted land for residential purposes inter alia alleging that plot No. 581/0.02 was allotted to him for residential purposes of which possession was also delivered to him; that he got the boundary wall constructed around the same but in the month of May, the defendant encroached upon the said land and despite repeated request, the possession was not restored to him. On notice, the defendant contested the suit, denying the allegations and inter alia pleading that a stay order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in a writ petition between the parties concerned was in force upto 31-10-1991; that the land in dispute was given to him long ago by the Pradhan concerned after taking Nazrana in lieu of the same and since then the boundary wall exists and as such, the present suit is the result of enmity; that in respect of the alleged allotment of the land in dispute in favour of the plaintiff, he alleged that a suit is still pending before the learned Collector concerned and since the matter is pending before the higher Courts, the suit of the plaintiff is, therefore, liable for dismissal. The learned trial Court,after completing the requisite formalities, decreed the suit of the plaintiff, vide its order dated 16-1-1995. Bharat Lal went up in appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner on 1-3-1995 which was dismissed as not maintainable, vide his order dated 19-2-1996 and therefore, it is against this order that the instant revision petition has been preferred by him before the Board. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and have also perused the record on file. None respondent for the opposite party despite due notice and repeated calls at the time of hearing. Assailing the impugned order, the learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that since the appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner as not maintainable after its admission on 14-3-1995, the impugned order is bad in law; that since the matter in question was pending before the higher Courts, the learned trial ought to have stayed the proceedings of the case under Section122-D of the Act and therefore, it has illegally entertained the instant application and proceeded with the same; that since the proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act which was a very clear evidence of possession and ejectment, was stayed by the Hon'ble High Court upto 31-10-1991, after the expiry of the said stay order, the possession could not be delivered to the father of the opposite party; that both the learned Courts below have failed to consider the material aspects of the instant case and therefore, erred in omitting the crucial questions involved in it; that once the possession of the revisionist was proved to the hilt by adducing positive evidence, its continuity would be presumed in his favour and therefore, both the learned Courts below have committed manifest error of law and fact in ignoring the material evidence on record; that in any view of the matter, the impugned order is rather illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction which cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be allowed to sustain and this revision petition very richly deserves to be allowed in toto.
(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the arguments advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and have also scanned the record on file. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention here that whatever the facts and circumstances of the instant case as well as the evidence on record would have been, the fact remains that no appeal is provided against an order passed under Section 122-D of the Act and therefore, the same does not lie. Here, in the instant case, the learned trial Court has passed an order under Section 122-D of the Act on 16-1-1995 against which an appeal was preferred by Bharat Lal on 1-3-1995 before the learned Additional Commissioner, who has rightly dismissed the same as not maintainable, although on some other grounds, vide his order dated 19-2-1996. Since no appeal is provided against an order passed under Section 122-D of the Act, it was clearly not maintainable and in a nut shell, this is what has happens in the instant case. The learned Counsel for the revisionist has rather bitterly failed to show any law under which an appeal lies against an order passed under Section 122-D of the Act or to substantiate his claim. The appeal has rather very rightly been dismissed as such and therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. In the result, this revision petition, having no force, very richly deserves dismissal outright.;