S .P.PANDEY, J. - (1.) This is a reference, dated 15-11-1990, made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in respect of the Revision Petition No. 22/68 of 1989- 90/Jhansi Tantoo v. State of U.P, recommending that the revision petition may be allowed, the order, dated 24-4-1989, passed by the learned trial Court in a case under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act (hereinafter refereed to as the Act), may be set aside and the lease, in questions may be maintained.
(2.) THE facts of the case have already been narrated by the learned Additional Commissioner, in his referring order and therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served in its reiteration here. Supporting the recommendation, made by him, the bone of contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist inter alia, in a nut-shell, is that the same, being quite logical and in order, may be accepted, in toto. The learned DGC (R) , in reply, urged that since the revisionist was not an eligible person for such allotment, the learned trial Court was perfectly justified in rendering the impugned order and therefore, the recommendation, made by the learned Additional Commissioner, very richly deserves rejection outright. I have closely and carefully considered the arguments, advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned DGC (R) and have also scanned the record, on file. As a matter of fact, the learned trial Court has cancelled the lease, in question, ordering for the expunction of the name of the revisionist and that of the Gaon Sabha, concerned, entered in the revenue records, on the ground that he is not an eligible person for such allotment. The learned Additional Commissioner, to the contrary, appears to have swayed away on flimsy grounds and has made this reference with his aforesaid recommendation. He is, in fact, did not appreciate the evidence, on record, logically and analytically, in correct perspective of law. The show-cause notice, issued by the learned trial Court, to revisionist at his Gandhiganj Mau, address, is on the record which clearly shows that the same was served upon him by Sri Matadin, process server, at Mau. This is rather a positive evidence, on record, which proves to the hilt, the allegation against the revisionist, although the same has been denied by him in his objection, stating that it was served upon him in Village, Timloni Tehsil, Mau and not at his Gandhiganj address. This solitary evidence would rather suffice to hold that the revisionist is not a resident of the circle and therefore, not eligible for such an allotment and therefore, I, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as well as evidence, on record, am of the considered opinion that the recommendation, made by the learned Additional Commissioner, very richly deserves rejection outright and the revision petition dismissed.
(3.) IN view of the above, the reference, made by the learned Additional Commissioner, is hereby rejected, the revision petition is accordingly dismissed and the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court, is hereby, confirmed and maintained. Let records be returned forthwith to the Courts concerned. Reference rejected.;