- (1.) PARITOSH K. Mukherjee, J. Sri S. A. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel have made their submissions and prayed that the petition be disposed of finally. Accordingly, I proceed to dispose of the writ petition finally.
(2.) THIS petition is directed against an order passed by Board of Revenue on April 18, 1988 rejecting the reference made by Additional Commissioner, Allahabad on March 18, 1983. The brief facts of the case are that on account of flood, house of the petitioner fell down. The petitioner constructed house on the same foundation. The case of the petitioner was that he was living in house in dispute for more than 50 years. Thereafter a notice in Z. A. Form No. 49-A was served upon father of the petitioner on the ground that land in dispute was belonging to Gaon Sabha. Father of the petitioner contested the case on the ground that notice was defective for lack of necessary particulars ; land in dispute was not identifiable on the spot, etc, etc. However, Tahsildar Soraon, District Allahabad passed an order on 27. 7. 1981 for ejectment of petitioner from the land in dispute and damage of Rs. 300. That since father of the petitioner had died during the pendency of the proceedings before Tahsildar, petitioner was substituted in his place. In the revision having been preferred by petitioner, Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division made a reference to the Board of Revenue recommending setting aside of order of Tahsildar dated 27. 7. 1981. However, Board of Revenue did not accept the recommendations of Additional Commissioner and affirmed the order passed by Tahsildar dated 27. 7. 1981. Aggrieved, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this court by means of present petition.
(3.) A perusal of order of reference, dated March 18, 1983, passed by Additional Commissioner, Allahabad reveals that he had arrived at the following conclusion:- (i) The notice in ZA Form 49a is defective; as the same is not in accordance with the amended rules ; (ii) The land in dispute is not identifiable on the spot because this was left as surplus land contiguous to the abadi during consolidation proceedings ; (iii) Lekhpal had not made any measurement on the spot and has taken it for granted that petitioner has reconstructed his house by unlawfully occupying Gaon Sabha land ; (iv) Witnesses have deposed in favour of petitioner that the house is old one and it is not the land of Gaon Sabha. It is really unfortunate that even though all details have been given by learned Additional Commissioner while making recommendations for quashing the order of Tahsildar, the Board of Revenue, without giving any cogent reason rejected the reference.;