Soran vs Ram Charan

S.R. Yadav, Member.

This is a reference arising out of an order dated 1 21991 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut in Revision No. 54/90Bulandshahr against the order dated 1161990 passed by the trial Court in original suit No. 31/1989 under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, recommending to set aside the order of the trial Court in question along with the entire proceedings in the suit in question.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a suit under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was instituted in respect of two Khata Nos. 103 and 249 having plot Nos. 490Ka, 249, 204C, 207C, 425 and 490C situate in village Shivali pergana Baran, tehsil and district Bulandshahr. Plot No. 426C was enumerated as Abadi in the plaint. Out of two Khatas, Khata number 103 was in cotenancy of plaintiffopposite party and revisionistdefendant having 1/2 share each while Khata No. 249 was in cotenancy of one more person, Smt. Champa widow of Mohar Singh but the said Mst. Champa was not made a party to the suit. Lots were prepared in the matter twice. Both times, the lots were not accepted. Latest lot was prepared by the Lekhpal on 571989 which was rejected vide trial Court's order dated 1161990 which is under challenge and in respect of which the aforesaid recommendation has been made by the learned Additional Commissioner.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the records, the points for consideration in the instant matter are whether without declaring the plot Nos. 425 and 426 as Abadi, the same could be excluded from division of holding or not; whether the suit was bad for want of nonimpleadment of Mst. Champa as a party to the suit; and whether the suit was bad for the institution of one suit or not. With regard to the above points, the learned Additional Commissioner has given categorical findings. Admittedly and obviously, there is no declaration that plot Nos. 425 and 426 are Abadi plots. Unless and until the said plots are declared as residential, the same could not be excluded from division of shares. Similarly, Khata No. 249 is recorded in the name of Mst. Champa w/o Mohar Singh in addition to the plaintiff and defendant. Despite her name being recorded as cotenant over Khata No. 249, she has not been impleaded as a party to the suit. It is also apparent that the share of Smt. Champa in the said Khata njimber is different. The learned Additional Commissioner has considered and discussed the points involved in the matter and has rightly recommended to set aside the order passed by the trial Court dated 1161990. The reference made by the learned Additional Commissioner is free from any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error and hence the same is liable to be accepted.

In the result, the reference is accepted, the revision petition is allowed and the order of the trial Court dated 1161990 is set aside.

Revision allowed.