Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1992 DIGILAW 301 (ALL)

Manik Chand v. Sarvati Devi

1992-02-26

BHAIRO PRASAD

body1992
JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - These are two revisions filed by Manik Chand under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the judgment of Shri Banshidhar, Additional Commissioner, (Admin), Agra Division, Agra dated 24.3.1987 passed in revision Nos. 132 and 133 of 1986-87. Those revisions were filed before Additional Commissioner against the order of Addl. Collector dated 3.2.1986 in a proceeding under Section 198(4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. Brief facts of the cases are that Land Management Committee, Alawalpur Tahsil Etmadpur, District Agra allotted leases of abadi site to Manik Chand and four others on 22.10.1965 of plot No. 112 area 0-9-0. Subsequently Manik Chand purchased the abadi sites which were allotted to other four persons. The Land Management Committee again on 17.10.1975 executed the lease of the same plot and the same area to Smt. Sarvati Devi for agricultural purposes. Manik Chand moved an application for cancellation of leases under Section 198(4) of U.P. No. 1 of 1951. Smt. Sarvati Devi moved application under Rule 115-P of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 for cancellation of lease of Manik Chand of abadi sites. Both the proceedings were consolidated and they were tried together. 3. The trial court upheld the allotment of both the contesting parties and accept that the trial court cancelled the leases of abadi sites of four other persons who have transferred the site to Manik Chand. 4. Three revisions were filed before the learned Additional Commissioner. Two revisions were filed by Manik Chand and one by Smt. Sarvati Devi. The Addl. Commissioner has dismissed the revisions and restored the order of the Additional Collector against which Manik Chand has filed these two revisions and Smt. Sarvati Devi has not filed any revision. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length. Perused the record. 6. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the land was not vacant when allotment was done in favour of Smt. Sarvati Devi. The land for abadi purpose hence it could not be leased out for agricultural purposes. He also contended that there are construction in the land in dispute which cannot be allotted to anyone. 7. The learned counsel for the opposite party, argued that no construction was done within the prescribed period of time, hence the land had vested again in the Gaon Sabha. He also contended that there are construction in the land in dispute which cannot be allotted to anyone. 7. The learned counsel for the opposite party, argued that no construction was done within the prescribed period of time, hence the land had vested again in the Gaon Sabha. The transfer was also made against period of limitation provided for the transfer, hence the L.M.C. was entitled to allot the land. 8. These tow proceedings are of different nature. The proceeding under Rule 115-P is a final at the stage of Collector. Now no re-visional power is provided against that order whereas in the proceeding under Section 198 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 the order of the collector is subject to the provisions of Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, hence these two proceedings should have been tried separately. 9. Both the courts below have not said about the allotment of Smt. Sarvati Devi. Her allotment was found to be correct only on the ground that the leases executed in favour of four other persons for abadi site was found to be illegal and invalid and they were cancelled. On this ground alone the allotment of Smt. Servati Devi has been concluded by both the courts below to be final and valid. In this way the trial curt has acted with material irregularity when they have not examined the allotment of Smt. Servati Devi whether it is valid or invalid. 10. In these circumstances I allow these two revision and set aside the orders of both the court below and direct the Additional Collector to readjudicate both the proceeding separately. Some date may be fixed in both the proceedings while in disposing cases but the trial court should be done separately. This order shall govern Revision No. 132+133 of 1986-87/Agra.