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 29-1-1996 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in revision petition No. 14/9 of 1994-95/Hamirpur, dismissing the same and confirming the judgment and order dated 10-1-1995, 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 Raja Ram etc., proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act were initiated by the learned trial Court against the revisionist for the cancellation of the lease, in question, on the ground of irregular allotment. On notice, the revisionist, Ram Swaroop, contested the proceedings, denying the allegations and inter-alia pleading that since by the order of the SDO concerned, the usage of the land was changed being a vacant land, which has now become final, the lease, in question, has validly been granted to him and no illegality or irregularity of any sort has been committed in it. The learned trial Court, vide its order dated 10-1-1995, cancelled the lease for the khata No. 703, plot No. 604/.462 hec. and ordered the land in dispute to vest in the Gaon Sabha, concerned. The allottee, Ram Swaroop went up in revision before the learned Additional Commissioner, who has dismissed the same, vide his judgment and order dated 29-1-1996 and therefore, it is against these orders 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 responded for the opposite party at the time of hearing, despite due notice and repeated calls. The main thrust of arguments of the learned Counsel for the revisionist, in a nut shell, are - firstly, that since the land in dispute was vacant and available for being leased out by the order of the SDO, concerned, dated 8-11-1992, in compliance of the Government orders (a copy of which is also on the record) the learned Courts below have committed gross illegality as well as irregularity in cancelling the same, especially when none of the residents of the village raised any objection to the aforesaid order of the SDO, concerned; secondly that since the land, in dispute, was not fit for khalihan, as per the unanimous resolution of the LMC, concerned, no illegality or material irregularity has been committed in the allotment of the same in favour of the revisionist and thirdly, that since the lease, in question, has been granted in favour of the allottee, in accordance with law, after following the prescribed formalities and procedure, the impugned orders are clearly 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 as a matter of principle, no Government order can over-ride the provisions of law and Act, under any circumstance or situation. Here, in the instant case, the land, in dispute, had been left as KHALIHAN, during the consolidation operations, as per the khatauni 1396-1410F, which was undoubtedly reserved for public purpose and therefore, such a land cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be utilised for any other purpose and as such, changing the class of the land, in dispute, from Class 6(4) to Class 5(2) by the SDO, concerned, vide his order dated 8-11-1992, was totally uncalled for. As a matter of fact, the usage of a land under Section 117 of the Act, being a land of public purposes, cannot be changed for any purpose, whatsoever, other than the purpose, for which, it is particularly reserved and therefore, I, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as well as the evidence on record, am fully convinced that allotment of such a land, in favour of the revisionist, is quite irregular and invalid and therefore, the learned Courts, below were perfectly justified in cancelling the same and rendering the impugned orders. They have, in fact, dealt with the matter, in question, in depth and no illegality or material irregularity has either been committed by them in rendering the impugned orders and therefore, in my considered opinion, no interference with the same is called for, by this Court, at this stage and as such, this revision petition, having no force, very richly deserves dismissal, outright.;