AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. P. Yadav, Member.
This reference has been received by the order of Additional Commissioner dated 4895 in which Additional Commissioner has recommended the order of the SDO dated 304 91 and 26693 be set aside.
No objection has been filed against the order of Additional Commissioner.
Heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist. No body is present on behalf of the opposite party.
The learned Counsel for The revisionist has said that the order passed no 30491 was had in law because the learned SDO has no power to declare bhumidhar under Section 122B (4F) of the UPZ And LR Act; hence Additional Commissioner has rightly set aside the order of SDO dated 30491. When the order of SDO was had in law the restoration application was also not maintainable.
I have seen the order of SDO dated 30491 in which he has approved the report of the Tahsildar dated 3491. In the report dated 3491 Supervisor Kandngo has recommended that on plot No. 713 applicant, Sheonath was in possession before 30695 hence the disputed land be recorded in the name of Sheonath as nontransferable bhumidhar. This report was finally accepted by the SDO on 30491. Against this order revisionist has moved a restoration application which was also dismissed on 26693.
After perusal of the record it is clear that the order passed by SDO on 30491 was bad in law hence the Additional Commissioner has rightly recommended for selling aside the order dated 30491. In the above circumstances the order dated 4895 raised by Additional Commissioner is confirmed and reference is accepted. Reference accepted.