Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 590 (ALL)

JHAPSE v. SITA RAM

2002-04-22

GIRDHARI LAL

body2002
GIRDHARI LAL, J. This revision has been filed against the order of the learned Additional Commissioner dated 27-11-90 by which the learned Additional Commissioner has dismissed the revision filed against the order of the trial Court dated 30-11- 1988. 2. Brief facts of this case is that Jhapsi has filed a complaint against Sita Ram for cancelling the lease executed in favour of Sita Ram and Ninkoo. The learned trial Court vide his order dated 30-11-88 has rejected the complaint of Jhapsi. Being aggrieved by this order a revision was filed before the learned Additional Commissioner which too was dismissed on 27-11-90. Being aggrieved by this order the present revision has been filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the original file. 4. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that it is admitted fact that Sita Ram is a teacher and he is not a landless agricultural labourer and therefore the Patta executed in his favour is against law. It has also been argued that learned Additional Collector has no jurisdiction to decide the case under Section 198 (4) of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the case was registered in the Court of Collector and Collector has transferred this case to the Additional Collector for disposal. Therefore in the present case Additional Collector has the jurisdiction to decide the matter. It has also been argued that since Patta has not been cancelled and only complaint has been rejected therefore the plea raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist that Additional Collector has the jurisdiction to decide the case has no relevance in the present case. 6. I have gone through the orders passed by learned Courts below. The learned trial Court vide his order dated 30-11-88 has mainly decided the case on the basis of the report of the Naib Tahsildar. 6. I have gone through the orders passed by learned Courts below. The learned trial Court vide his order dated 30-11-88 has mainly decided the case on the basis of the report of the Naib Tahsildar. The report of the Naib Tahsildar was not proved in the Court and it was necessary to take evidence of both the parties and after enquiring into the matter the matter ought to have been decided by the trial Court but the learned trial Court has only based his judgment on the basis of the report of the Naib Tahsildar which is not correct. Therefore the orders of both the Courts below are liable to be set aside. 7. In view of the above, the revision is allowed, the orders passed by both the Courts below are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Collector with an observation that both parties may be given reasonable opportunity of hearing and to adduce evidence and then the matter should be decided on merits. Revision allowed. .