Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1992 DIGILAW 905 (ALL)

Chandra Deiya v. Ram Chandra Singh

1992-07-13

BHAIRO PRASAD

body1992
JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This revision has been filed under Section 333-A of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi dated 19.10.1982 passed in revision No. 282 of 1980/Ghazipur under Section 333-A of the Act. That order was passed by the Additional Commissioner against the order of the Collector, Ghazipur in proceeding No. 33 under Section 198(4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 on 13.5.1980. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the proceeding started against Chandra Deiya and others for the cancellation of the dispute plots allotted to her by the Land Management Committee on the application of Banga. During the pendency of the proceeding Banga compromise in favour of Chandra Deiya and others, hence his application was ordered to be dismissed but in the same order the Collector Ghazipur also directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to inquire about the validity of the land allotted to the allottee. Both the orders was passed in the same order on 29.9.1977. During that inquiry Ram Chander also moved application for the cancellation of the lease regarding two plots i.e., plot No. 234/2 area 0-10-0 and 185 M. area 1-0-0 of Village Chaura, Pargana Mohammadabad district Ghazipur. The allottees Challenging the proceeding by way of filing objection that the court has no power to again initiate proceeding and sought the order of the Collector on that application. The learned collector vide it s order dated 13.5.180 rejected the objection on the ground that the application of Banga was dismissed as he ceases pairvi the proceeding and had compromised. The Collector has every right to inquire the validity of the lease and the inquiry order was passed in the same order, hence this proceeding is not barred. Revision was filed against that order. The learned Additional Commissioner dismissed the revision on 19.10.1982, hence this revision has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 3. Heard the leaerned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 4. When the application of Banga was rejected and inquiry was ordered by the Collector no revision was filed against that order, therefore, that order becomes absolute. Since the inquiry was initiated in the same order, therefore, the application filed by Ram Chander will not come within the purview of the application against the matter already adjudicated. Perused the record. 4. When the application of Banga was rejected and inquiry was ordered by the Collector no revision was filed against that order, therefore, that order becomes absolute. Since the inquiry was initiated in the same order, therefore, the application filed by Ram Chander will not come within the purview of the application against the matter already adjudicated. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that when the proceeding was dropped again proceeding cannot be initiated. Dropping the proceeding and initiating the proceeding in the same order have prejudiced the interest of the revisionist. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist in this argument when the earlier complainant had compromised in favour of the allottee, therefore, the order passed by the Collector will be application in toto. 5. I, therefore, find no force in this revision, hence it is dismissed and the order of both the courts below are perfectly valid and justified.