R.J.SINGH, J. - (1.) TILAK Chand and others have filed this revision under Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against the judgment dated 23-12-99 and 22-7-2000 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur.
(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. The learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that plot in dispute was never recorded in the name of the opposite-party Suresh Chand etc. and this contention get support from the spot inspection made by the Revenue Inspector. instead opposite-party possession over the land in dispute the possession of the present revisionist was found much before 30-6-1995 on the basis of the report of the Revenue Inspector the order made in favour of Suresh Chand son of Chhedi Lal was delected and the names of the present revisionist was recorded. Against this order a revision was preferred before the Additional Commissioner Kanpur. The revision was allowed and order of SDO dated 20-1-96 was set aside and the name of Suresh Chand was again recorded. A review application was moved by the present revisionist before the Additional Commissioner Kanpur as no opportunity was given to him before the case was decided by the Court. The learned Additional Commissioner after due consideration rejected the restoration application of the present revisionist. After hearing the arguments of both the Counsels for the parties it is evident that both the orders were set aside by both the Courts below. Parties were not given proper opportunity of hearing.
(3.) I am, therefore, of the opinion that both the orders passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside. Hence without expressing any opinion at this legal the order passed by both the Courts below area set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned trial Court for fresh decision after affording opportunity of hearing of both the parties and decide the case afresh on merits in accordance with law. Revision allowed.;