- (1.) THIS is a reference, dated 18-12-1990, made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in respect of the revision petition No. 43/86 of 1989-90 Jhansi Kamta Prasad v. Behari etc. , recommending that the revision petition be allowed, the order, dated 21-5-1990, passed by the learned trial Court be set-aside and the case be remanded for decision afresh on merits, according to law, in the light of the observations made by him.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts, giving rise to the instant reference are that on an application, made by the revisionist, proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were initiated against the allottees, concerned for cancellation of the lease, granted in their favour, on the ground of irregular allotment. It was alleged that since he being CHAMAR by caste, belonging to Scheduled Caste community, is in possession of the land, in dispute since before 30th June, 1975, he is entitled to the benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act. On notice, the opposite party contested the proceedings, denying the allegations and inter alia pleading that the revisionist has no concern with the land, in dispute and the allotment has been made validly. The learned teial Court, after completing the requisite formalities, vide its order, dated 21-5-1990, rejected the application of the revisionist and therefore, it is against this order that a revision has been preferred by the revisionist before the learned Additional Commissioner who has made this reference to the Board with his aforesaid recommendation. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record, on file. Assailing the recommendation, made by the learned Additional Commissioner, the learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that the revision petition deserves to be allowed in toto, instead of remanding the case to the learned trial Court, as the revisionist is entitled to the benefit under Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act. The learned Counsel for the opposite party, in reply, urged that since in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the learned trial Court was perfectly justified in rendering its order, dated 21-5-1990, the recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner is vague and without any basis, as the revisionist has no concern with the land, in dispute and therefore, the reference, made by him be rejected and the revision petition be dismissed outright. 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. A bare perusal of the reference, made by the learned Additional Commissioner clearly reveals that after the proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act against the revisionist were dropped, the learned trial Court ought to have looked into the issue, as to whether or not the revisionist was entitled to get the benefit under Section 122- B (4-F) of the Act. 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 Moreover, the revisionist, being CHAMAR by caste. belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, could also be an eligible person for the allotment of the land, in dispute in his favour and thereafter the allotment to any other person should have been made. The learned Additional Commissioner has observed that the impugned order, passed by the learned trial Court does not throw any light on the aforesaid material aspects of the matter in question and therefore, he is of the opinion that the case should be remanded to the learned trial Court for decision afresh, on merits, according to law. I, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as well as evidence on record, am fully convinced with the views expressed by him in his referring order and therefore, his recommendation very richly deserves acceptance, in toto.
(3.) IN view of the above, the reference, made by the learned Additional Commissioner is accepted, the revision petition is, accordingly, allowed, the impugned order, dated 21-5-1990 passed by the learned trial Court, is set-aside and the case is hereby, remanded to it 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, in the light of the observations, made by the learned Additional Commissioner in his referring order, dated 18-12-1990. Let records be returned forthwith, to the Courts concerned. Parties to appear before the Court, concerned on 28-2-2006. Reference accepted. .;