ANIL SWARUP,J. - (1.) AN application dated 8-11-2002 was filed by way of Revision against the order of Additional Collector dated 17-10-2002. The proceedings in the trial Court were initiated on the application dated 2-3-2001, under Section 198 (4) of UPZA and LR Act filed by Jagdish and others. It was alleged in the application that the OPs were not eligible for grant of pattas. It was also alleged that the concerned land was in the nature of a pond. Appropriate procedure was also Allegedly not followed in the grant of pattas. The application was partly accepted after an analyses of the evidence on record and some of the pattas, as listed out in the order, were cancelled.
(2.) IN the revision filed before this Court it has been indicated that the land was not in the nature of a pond and that appropriate procedure was followed in the grant of pattas. It has also been alleged that the Additional Collector had not done any spot inspection to ascertain the nature of the land. I have proceed through the documents on record and also heard the Counsels of both the parties. At the outset it may be noted that it is not essential for the Additional Collector to undertake a spot inspection. He has to rectify himself on the basis of evidence available on record. The Additional Collector has not rescinded all the pattas. Specific grounds have been indicated on the basis of which Pattas have been cancelled. Thus, pattas on plot No. 1506/3 have been cancelled on account of it being recorded as river. This is based on docunentary evidence. Similarly, certain pattas have been cancelled on account of violation of Section 28 of Panchayat Raj Act.
(3.) THERE is, therefore, no need to interfere with the order passed by the Additional Collector and the Revision is dismissed.;