S.P.PANDEY, j. - (1.) THIS is a ref­erence dated 14-7-1997 made by the Learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad in respect of the revision No. 12/96-97 dis­trict Rampur with his recommendation that the revision be allowed and the judg­ment and decree dated July 4, 1996, passed by the learned trial Court be set aside.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the name of the O.P. Chhotey is recorded in class III (as Asami), in the extract of Khatauni for 1396 to 1401, with period from 1386-F. He instituted a suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, for declaring him Bhumidhar with transferable rights over the disputed hold­ing. The learned trial Court decreed the suit on July 4, 1996. Aggrieved by this order a revision was preferred. The Learned Additional Commissioner has made this reference in respect of the aforesaid revision recommending that the judgment and decree dated 4-7-1996 passed by the trial Court be set aside. I have heard the learned Counsel for the O.Ps and perused the records on file. None appeared for the revisionist (U.P. State). For the O.Ps it was submitted that the suit is barred under Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act and the Additional Commis­sioner has not discussed the oral evidence on record that the disputed land is not covered under Section 132 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, that the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court is quite just proper as such this reference be rejected and revision be dismissed.
(3.) I have carefully and closely con­sidered the contentions raised by the Learned Counsel for the O.P. and have also gone through the relevant records on file. Perusal of the records reveals that the learned trial Court has not examined the matter in question in correct perspective of law: The finding recorded by it is quite un-sustainable, unfounded and un-war-ranted in law. The Learned Lower Revisional Court has properly an alysed, discussed and considered the material and relevant facts and circumstances of the instant case in true perspective of law. It has properly examined the points at issue and has drawn a correct conclusion that disputed land is of public utility and hence this land is covered under Section 132 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, over which any right or interest of Bhumidhar cannot be con­ferred upon. The learned Additional Com­missioner has rightly recommended for setting aside the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 4-7-1996 passed by the learned trial Court. I see no reason to disagree with the aforesaid recommendation the foots and circumstances of the instant case.;