Adhar Singh v. Diwari Lal — 1992 DIGILAW 1099 (ALL)

JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, M. - This revision has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra dated 29.7.85 passed in revision No. AO of 1984-85 arising out of the order of Additional Collector, Mainpuri dated 31.3.83 in case No. 171 of 1982-93 under Section 198 (A) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. In the trial court Adhar Singh filed application that plot No. 40 area 1.30 and plot No. 43-M area .55 of village Pithanpur, Tahsil Shikohabad has been illegally allotted to Diwari Lal without any meeting or agenda of the Land Management Committee. He is not a resident of the village Pithanpur. The opposite party contested the proceeding that he is landless agricultural Labourer belonging to scheduled caste. He had only 15 of land before the allotment of the disputed plot. The allotted plots are just at the boundary of his village. The allotment was done in 1974 and nobody was ready to take that land in allotment from the Land Management Committee of the village in which disputed plot lies, hence he was allotted land. The trial court dismissed the application of the revisionist that he is not aggrieved and allotment is perfectly valid. He also held that when the allotment was done it was not necessary that a landless labourer belonging to Scheduled caste should be resident of that village but he should be resident of the circle of the Nyaya Panchayat. The allottees are resident of adjoining village. The total land allotted to him including the land already held by him comes to 2 acres. The allotted land is within the prescribed limit of the land to be allotted under the law. Against the order of the Addl. Collector the revision was filed in the court of Additional Commissioner. He also came to the conclusion that the allotment is perfectly valid and no illegality has been done in the allotment. Therefore, he dismissed the revision vide his order dated 29.7.85 against which this revision has been filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the disputed land is inside the chak of his client. Maps of both the villages are on the record. Therefore, he dismissed the revision vide his order dated 29.7.85 against which this revision has been filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the disputed land is inside the chak of his client. Maps of both the villages are on the record. Plots allotted have different identity they are surrounded by the boundaries, hence they cannot be said to be inside the chak of the revisionist. The learned counsel also argued that the allottee is resident of other village, hence he could not have been allotted the land. The opposite party is landless agricultural labourers belonging to Scheduled caste, therefore, he was entitled for the allotment of the land because the disputed land is just on the border of his village. In these circumstances of the case no any illegality has been pointed out in the order of the courts below. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party argued that both the courts have given a concurrent finding and the disputed plot was not found to be in the chak of the revisionist. Moreover the area of the disputed plot is 1-85 and so big area cannot be inside the chak of any one. The allottee was entitled to be allotted the land in accordance with the provisions of Section 190 (1) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, therefore, he requested that the revision should be dismissed. 6. No illegality has been pointed out by the revisionist. Both the courts have given a concurrent finding regarding the validity of the lease. The allottee is member of scheduled caste and agricultural labourer. He is entitled for the allotment. The allotment is also quite old, therefore, there is no force in this revision. It is accordingly dismissed.