R.J.SINGH, j. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records.
(2.) IN the statement of opposite-party Asharfi Lal, it is very clearly mentioned that if plot No. 522 area 2-2-0 is exchanged with the land of Gaon Sabha plot No. 524 area 410 hectares, then he will have no objection. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionists that he is in possession over the land in dispute much before 30-6-1985 but as regards the documentary evidence, only his statement and the statement of Asharfi Lal, opposite-party is there and no other piece of documentary evidence is on record whereas the allotment made in favour of opposite-party Asharfi Lal was through a resolution duly passed by the L.M.C. The allotment in favour of Asharfi Lal is not sole allotment but so many other persons were given land by the same resolution. The recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner is to regularise the land allotted in favour of Putti Lal the present revisionist on the basis of his possession before 30-6-1985. There is no admission of Putti Lal's possession by Asharfi Lal as per Asharfi Lal has accepted only exchange with khasra No. 522 area 2.2.0 with the land of khasra No. 524 area 410 hectares then he will have no objection. This statement of Asharfi Lal opposite-party cannot be read as an admission.
(3.) THE recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner is not based on facts hence his recommendation is not fit to be accepted. Reference is rejected and the revision is dismissed. The order of the trial Court is confirmed. Reference rejected.;