- (1.) S. P. Pandey, J. This is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), preferred against the judgment and order, dated 6-5- 1999, passed by the SDO, Mahrauni, rejecting the resolution of the LMC, concerned for the grant of Patta in favour of the revisionists, in a case under Section 195 of the Act.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts, giving rise to instant revision petition are that vide resolution of the LMC, concerned, dated 20-9-1998, the names of the revisionists were proposed for the allotment of Patta to them and the same was forwarded to the SDO, concerned, for its approval. The SDO, concerned, on the basis of the Tehsil report, disapproved the proposal of the LMC concerned in favour of the revisionists, vide his order dated 6-5-1999 and therefore, it is against this order that the instant revision petition has been preferred by them before the Board. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned DGC (R) and have also perused the relevant papers on file. Assailing the impugned order, the bone of contentions of the learned Counsel for the revisionist, inter-alia, in a nut-shell, is that since an order, passed under Rule 176 (4) of the UPZA and LR Rules is judicial in nature, as per the settled principle of law and in the same facts and circumstances of the case, this Court had since remanded the matter, in question, in Revision Petition No. 106 of 2002-3/lalitpur, to the learned SDO, concerned, the disapproval of the resolution of the LMC by the impugned order, dated 6-5-1999, without affording due opportunity of being heard to the parties, concerned, was not at all justified in law, in view of the aforesaid view of the Board and therefore, this case also needs to be remanded to the learned SDO, concerned for decision, afresh on merits, ccording to law, after affording due and reasonable opportunity of being heard and adducing evidence, if any, to the parties, concerned. In support, reliance has been placed on the case laws, reported in 1986 RD 8, 1998 RD 40, 1989 RD 370 and 326, 1988 RD 179 and 1985 RD 46 and 261. The learned DGC (R), in reply, urged that appropriate orders, as per the settled principle of law, may be passed in the instant case, as well. I have closely and carefully considered the arguments, advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the revisionists as well as the learned DGC (R) and has also scanned the relevant papers on file. As a matter of fact, in Review Petition No. 42 of 2003-04/lalitpur, in Revision Petition No. 106 of 2002-3/lalitpur, the Board, vide its order, dated 11-2-2004, has remanded the matter, in question to the learned SDO, concerned for decision, afresh in view of the settled principle of law, reported in 1998 RD 40. It is also pertinent to mention here that since an order, passed under Rule 176 (4) of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Rules is judicial, in nature, the same could not adversely be passed without affording due Create PDF with GO2pdf for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer. Copyright Capital Law Infotech opportunity of being heard to the adversely affected person or persons in view of the settled principle of law that none should be condemned unheard and therefore, I am of the considered opinion that a case for remand has very well been made out, in the instant case as well, view of the settled principle of law.
(3.) IN view of the above, this revision petition is accordingly, allowed, the impugned order, dated 6-5-1996, passed by the learned SDO, concerned, is set-aside and the case is hereby remanded to him for decision, afresh, on merits according to law, after affording due and reasonable opportunity of being heard and adducing evidence, if any, to the parties, concerned. Parties to appear before the Court concerned on 25-5-2006. Revision allowed. .;