- (1.) S. R Srivastava, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel representing the respon dent No. 3.
(2.) PERUSED the record. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate authority whereunder the appeal filed by the respondent No. 3 directed against the rejection of his objection claiming to be the exclusive tenure-holder of plot Nos. 610, 117 and 1405 in dispute had been rejected and treat ing the said plots to be the holdings of Chandra Bhan, the said holdings had been declared as surplus. The appellate authority vide the im pugned order allowed the appeal and hold ing that the aforesaid plots really con stituted the original holdings of the respon dent No. 3 wherein she alone had the ex clusive tenurial rights, remanded the matter for re- determination of the extent of the surplus area excluding the aforesaid three plots.
(3.) FROM the materials brought on record, it is apparent that the three plots had been settled by the Assistant Custodian in the proceedings under the Administra tion of Evacuee Property Act in favour of Zariful Hasan in case No. 1037/e/57, decided on 3-3-1958. However, the order of the Assistant Custodian vesting the Bhumidhari rights in favour of Zariful Hasan so far as the three plots were con cerned was set aside on the objection of Chandra Bhan Singh, and the plots were allotted in his favour and an order was is sued on 4-8-1988, directing that any Bhumidhari names entered in respect of the land in dispute be deleted and the names of Chandra Bhan Singh and Raghubir Singh be recorded in the revenue record relating to the aforesaid plots as the allottees of the custodian. This order had been issued pursuant to the order passed by the Assistant Settle ment Commissioner (R) cum Deputy Cus todian Evacuee Property, U. P. dated 8-7-1958.;