Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1982 DIGILAW 1298 (ALL)

Jagar Nath v. Ram Siromani

1982-11-24

R.R.SRIVASTAVA

body1982
JUDGMENT R.R. Srivastava, Member - Revision no. 112 of 1980-81 pertaining to District Varanasi was filed by Jagarnath, son of Sheobodh, resident of village Birnal Taluka Konrh, pergana Bhadohi, tahsil Gyanpur district Varanasi against the order dated 31-10-1980 of Additional Commissioner, Varanasi, rejecting his revision against the order dated 3-4-1979 of Additional Collector, Varanasi in a proceeding under rule 115-P of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that revisionist filed an application for cancellation of lease in respect of plot no. 75 reserved for abadi site during consolidation operations in favour of Ram Siromani, son of Jai Narain and Jeet Narin son of Pratap on 31-3-75. Objection as filed by Ram Siromani on 27-6-75. After recording evidence of the parties and hearing them, the trial court rejected the application vide order dated 3-4-79 on the ground that the application was premature in so far as the permission of the S.D.O, had not been accorded on the lease granted by the L.M.C. Revision of the applicant was also dismissed by the Additional Commissioner under Section 333-A of Z.A. Act. Accordingly, second revision under Section 333 of the said Act was preferred in this court. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record. 4. The lease was granted on 28-3-75 and the application for cancellation was given on 31-3-73 of the Tahsildar Gyanpur shows that permission of the S.D.O. had not been accorded, and therefore, the application was premature. The O.P. Ramsiromani and Jeet Narain were allotted land under Rule 115-N and rule 115-N as it existed on the date of allotment i.e. 26-3-75 did not contemplate prior approval of the S.D.O. before the allotment of land by the L.M.C. Therefore, orders of the trial as well as lower revision court cannot be maintained. Accordingly both the orders are set aside and the case remanded to the trial court with the direction to decide the application of the revisionist or merit in accordance with law.