B.P.NILRATNA - (1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order dated 3-2-1995 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, in a revision filed against the order dated 16-11-1991 passed by the trial Court in a case under Section 198(4) Z.A. and L.R. Act.
(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant papers on file. It appears that on the application of one Puran Singh a report was asked for from the Tahsil. The Naib Tahsildar submitted his report on 15-12-1990 that the land in dispute No. 116/1-16-0 situate at village Devnari in District Agra was allotted to the applicant, vide the SDO's order dated 6-7-1990. It was further reported that the aforesaid disputed land earlier was allotted to Viri Singh in the year 1986 for the plantation of trees and plantation of trees is impossible on the said land. The trial Court after considering the report and hearing to the parties cancelled the lease granted to Viri Singh, the revisionist. Against this order a revision was filed before the Commissioner, Agra Division, which has been dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner on 3-2-1995. Against this very order the present revision has come up before the Board of Revenue; hence this revision.
(3.) HERE having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the relevant papers on file I find the learned trial Court has recorded finding that neither the lease has been filed nor the trees have been planted over the same. The learned Additional Commissioner in his order dated 3-2-1995 has recorded finding since the lease has not been filed as such, the revisionist is not an aggrieved person. In the circumstance I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below. The learned Counsel for the revisionist has failed to show any illegality or irregularity committed by the Courts below in passing the aforesaid impugned orders.;