Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1992 DIGILAW 498 (ALL)

Nawal Singh v. Gaon Sabha

1992-04-10

BHAIRO PRASAD

body1992
JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This revision has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the order of Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra dated 12.1.1982 passed in revision No. 73 of 1981 against the order of the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector Chhata, District Mathura dated 31.12.1980, passed in a proceeding under Section 122-B U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. The proceeding against the revisionist started on the report of the Lekhpal that he has cut down and removed 100 Babool tree and 5 Doonger and Chhokar trees from the Gaon Sabha land No. 154 of village Bhadokhar, Tehsil Chhata, District Mathura. The notice was contested by the opposite party that he has not removed the trees and the allegations against him is false. After taking the evidence the trial court found the allegation true and proved on the revisionist, therefore, he imposed a damages of Rs. 5,000/- vide his order dated 31.12.1980. The revision filed before the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra. He also confirmed the finding of the trial curt and rejected the revision on 12.1.1982. Then this revision has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist Sri R.K. Yadav, Advocate. No one is present on behalf of the opposite parties. Perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the revisionist is ex-pradhan of the village, therefore, on account of enmity he was falsely implicated in this scandal. The trees has been removed and cut down by the villagers, he has intimated the facts to the concerned authorites. They have not taken any action then they initiated a proceeding fraudulently against him. These are the findings of facts. Both the courts have recorded a different finding and have found that the Pradhan has managed to cut down the trees and removed it. The finding recorded by the Lower Court now cannot be challenged in this revision. No any jurisdiction error in the revision has been pointed out. Neither any other point was pressed by the revisionist. I, therefore, found no force in this revision and it is accordingly dismissed.