Mohammad Sharif Khan v. Hubdar Khan — 1991 DIGILAW 411 (ALL)

JUDGMENT D.D. Varma, M. - This is a reference made by the learned Additional commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad in a revision No. 217/1973 recommending that the impugned order dated 22-8-1979 passed by trial court be set aside and the revision be allowed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Mohd. Sharif Khan and Baladin, moved an application under Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for cancellation of lease granted by the L.M.C. in favour of O.P. Hubdar Khan. It was alleged in the application that the allotment has not been done according to rules, as such the patta be cancelled. Hubdar Khan, O.P. filed objection against the said application and stated that there is no illegality in the allotment proceedings. The learned trial court rejected the application of the revisionists vide its order dated 22-8-1979. Mohd. Sharif Khan and Baladin, revisionists, went in revision against the order of the trial court. The learned Additional Commissioner vide his order dated 5-8-1988 has made the above said recommendation. An objection to the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner has been filed on behalf of the O.P. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned counsel for the O.P. and have also gone through the files of the lower courts. The main objection to the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner as raised by the 0.P. is that the revisionists, on whose complaint the proceedings under Section 198 (4) were initiated in the lower court are not "aggrieved party." The contention of the learned counsel for the O.P. was that none other than the aggrieved party could bring a suit under Section 198(4). To prove his point and to further eludidate the definition of the aggrieved party the learned counsel has cited judgments reported in 1984 R.D. page 408, 1961 A.L.J. page 473 and AIR 1973 Supreme Court page 76. I have gone through these judgments and the main thrust of these judgments is that the "aggrieved party" is one whose personal, pecuniary or property rights are directly and injuriously affected. In the present case the complainant-revisionist in his very first application in the trial court had stated that he was in possession of the said property. I have gone through these judgments and the main thrust of these judgments is that the "aggrieved party" is one whose personal, pecuniary or property rights are directly and injuriously affected. In the present case the complainant-revisionist in his very first application in the trial court had stated that he was in possession of the said property. He has also tried to prove his case through oral evidence of Sharif, P.W. 1 and Baladin P.W. 2 and also through affidavit of Baladin Khan at the appellate court stage. This prima facie proves that the complainant-revisionist were aggrieved party. Interestingly the plea of revisionists not being aggrieved party was not taken by the O.Ps. either at the stage of the trial court or at the state of the revisional court. I, therefore, consider that the revisionists were definitely aggrieved party within the meaning of Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. I, therefore, reject this ground of objection by the opposite party. 4. Yet other grounds of objection raised by the defendant-opposite parties are that there was no violation of Rule 173 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules and that the L.M.C. was not made a party. The learned Additional Commissioner has clearly spelt out as to why he considers that the provisions of Rule 173 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules were not followed. I am satisfied with the arguments given by the learned Additional Commissioner and hold that the lease was granted without proper Munadi. 5. The issue that the L.M.C. was not made a party is not borne out by a perusal of the files of the lower courts. The L.M.C. has been made a party by the revisionist at both the stages. It may be further pointed out that the revisionist had not taken this plea in its revision application before the revisional court. 6. On the basis of a above discussions and on the grounds mentioned in para 4 above accept the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner. Accordingly the revision is allowed, the order of the trial court dated 21-8-1979 is set aside and the allotment made in favour of Hubdar Khan, O.P., is cancelled.