S.P.PANDEY, j. - (1.) THIS is a revision preferred against the judgment and order dated March 1, 1996 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad arising out of an order dated 16-11 -1992 passed by the learned Trial Court in the proceeding initiated under Section 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the ease arc that an application dated 17-4-1990 was moved on behalf of the applicant-revisionist Gariba under Section 198(4), of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act with the prayer that the name of the O.Ps Jani 7 others be expunged from the revenue papers and the applicant-revisionist be declared the Bhumidhar under Section 122-B(4-F) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, over the disputed holding as detailed at the foot of the plaint. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial has withdrawn the notice issued to the O.Ps and also dropped the proceedings in the instant case on 16-11-1992. Aggrieved by this order a revision was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner has also dismissed the revision. Hence this second revision. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties-perused the records on file. For the revisionist, it was contended that the leases executed in favour of the O.Ps are wholly illegal as the all ottees are not covered in the land less agricultural labour under the law that the all ottees have also sufficient land beyond the prescribed limit that the Courts below have wrongly and illegally decided the matter in question as such the aforesaid impugned order must be set aside that the land allotted to the O.Ps in the year 1975 was not vacant land as the applicant-revisionist was already in possession over the disputed land prior to Zamindari Abolition that the show-cause notice under Section 198(6) should not have been treated as time barred since the proceedings of the cancellation of leases was already in operation prior to 10-11-1980, that the Courts below have com­mitted a manifest error of law in treating the application dated 10-11-1980 as lime barred. In support of his contention he has cited case-law reported in 1994 R.D. 540. The learned Counsel for the O.Ps submitted that the applicant-revisionist is not aggrieved party, that no suo moto proceed­ings have been taken in the instant case, that the instant proceedings were initiated upon the application moved on behalf of the applicant- revisionist Gariba, that the aforesaid application was moved after the lapse of 15 years. As such the aforesaid impugned order passed by the leaned Court below (The learned Additional Commissioner) is quite just and proper which must be maintained.
(3.) I have carefully and closely con­sidered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant records on file. A closed perusal of the records reveals that the learned lower Revisional Court has properly and lysed, considered and dis­cussed the relevant points at issue and has recorded clear and categorical finding to the effect that the aforesaid application moved by the applicant-revisionist was highly time barred and show-cause notice issued against the O.Ps. in the instant mat­ter was also time barred. On examination of the relevant records it is a manifestly clear that the instant proceedings were initiated upon the afore said application moved on behalf of the applicant-revisionist Gariba. The learned Addition­al Commissioner has properly examined the points at issue in the instant case and drawn correct conclusion. I entirely agree with the aforesaid conclusion. I find no any error of law. fact or jurisdiction so as to warrant any interference in the aforesaid impugned order passed by the learned Ad­ditional Commissioner.;