- (1.) S. P. Pandey 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 15-10-2004, passed by the learned Collector, Mahoba in case Nos. 12/35/81/12/2003 under Section198 (4) of the Act.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts, giving rise to the instant revision petition are that on the application of the revisionist, Swami Din etc. , proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act were initiated against the opposite parties, allottees for cancellation of the leases, granted in their favour. On notice, the allottees contested the proceedings, denying the allegations and inter alia, pleading that since the revisionists have no concern with the land, in dispute and the same is the property of the Gaon Sabha, concerned, the leases, in question, have validly been granted in their favour. The learned Collector, concerned, after completing the requisite formalities, vide his order, dated 15-10-2004, rejected this application of the revisionists, maintaining the leases in question and therefore, it is against this order that the instant revision petition has been preferred by the complainants before the Board. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record on file. Assailing the impugned order, one of contentions of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is inter alia, in a nut shell, are, firstly, that since the ancestors of the revisionists and after their death, the revisionists have been continuously in possession of the land, in dispute as bhumidhar thereof and the name of the father of the revisionist was recorded as its tenant, prior to and after the abolition of zamindari, the view of the learned Court below, to the contrary, which is entirely against the evidence on records, is grossly erroneous in law; secondly, that since in a suit under Section 229-B of the Act between the parties, concerned, the revisionists have already been declared as bhumidhar vide order, dated 17-1-1980, which was never challenged before any competent Court and was binding upon the parties, concerned, the learned Collector has committed manifest error of law as well as fact in under-valuing the legal effect of the final judgment, declaring them as bhumidhar as well as in holding that the revisionists could not acquire legal rights on account of bar under Section 49 of the UPCH Act, as the rights and title could not be decided in summary proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act; thirdly, that since the names of the revisionists were omitted from the revenue records and the land was recorded as Banjar due to the mistake of the lekhpal, concerned, no right or title could accrue to the opposite parties and the allotments, made in their favour were void ab initio and therefore, the impugned order cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be allowed to sustain and this revision petition very richly deserves to be 2 Create PDF with GO2pdf for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer This Software is licensed to: :-REg Copyright Capital Law Infotech allowed, in toto. The learned Counsel for the opposite parties, in reply, urged that since the revisionists were not directly affected or prejudiced from the allotments, in question, they were not aggrieved persons, in law and therefore, have no locus standi to file an application under Section 198 (4) of the Act; that since the suit of the revisionists under Section 229-B of the Act was barred under Section 49 of the UPCH Act and a revision is still pending against the order, dated 17-1-1980, passed in that suit, as per the certified copy of the report to that effect, on record, the allottees, concerned cannot be evicted under Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act, as they are agricultural labourers belonging to Scheduled Caste and therefore, the learned Collector concerned has rightly dismissed the complaint filed by the revisionists, maintaining the lease in question and as such this revision petition having no force, very richly deserves dismissal outright. In support, reliance has been placed on the case laws reported in 1992 RD 51 (H), 1984 RD 408; 196 1 ALJ 473, 1968 AWR 844. I have closely and carefully considered the arguments, advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also scanned the record, on file. As a matter of fact, consolidation proceedings started in the village, concerned in 1978, where the names of the allottees, concerned were ordered to be recorded and no objections or revision was ever filed by the revisionists before the consolidation authorities. The learned Collector, concerned, has dealt with the matter in question through and through, in depth and after considering the entire evidence on record as well as the circumstances, has come to the conclusion that it is rather very difficult to say that the revisionists were in facts, tenants of the land, in dispute. It is also noteworthy that the order, dated 17-1-1980, passed in the suit under Section 229-B of the Act, during the consolidation operations, is still subjudice before the learned Commissioner and this complaint has been filed under the directions of the learned SDO, Maudaha. The learned Court, below has rather rightly observed that the learned Court, concerned ought to have not declared them as bhumidhars of the land, and dispute, as the consolidation operations were in progress and therefore, the case in barred under Section 49 of the UPCH Act. Moreover, as per the case-laws, referred to, by the learned Counsel for the opposite party, it is crystal clear that the revisionists are not an aggrieved party and therefore, they have no locus standi to file an application under Section 198 (4) of the Act. In view of the above, the contentions of the learned Counsel for the revisionist, who has miserably failed to substantiate his claim, are rather untenable. In the facts and circumstance of the instant case as well as the evidence, on record, the learned Collator was perfectly justified in rendering the impugned order, with which no interference is called for, as I entirely agree with the views, expressed by him and therefore, this revision petition, having no force, very richly deserves dismissal, outright.
(3.) IN view of the above, this revision petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed and the impugned order, passed by the learned Collector, concerned is hereby, confirmed and maintained. Let records be returned forthwith, to the Court concerned. Revision dismissed .;