Sureshwati vs State of U.P.

Ram Janani Singh, Member.

This revision has been preferred against the order dated 20588 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut in Revision No. 46 of 198788 district Ghaziabad.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

The proceedings for cancellation of Patta were started on the report of Tahsildar Dadri. The action was initiated suomoto by the Collector, Ghaziabad, taking into consideration that the resolution dated 11281 was not in accordance with the rules and the provisions laid down in the Act ; that Munadi and Agenda had not been issued separately ; and that the compliance of Rule 173, Z.A. Rules had not been made properly. Z.A. Form 57Ka and 57Kha were not prepared before the allotment. The learned trial Court had held that the revisionist Smt. Sureshwati''s case is not covered under Section 198 (1) of the Act and hence the preparation of Z.A. Form 57 Ka and 57Kha was mandatory.

After considering the evidence on record and provisions of relevant sections of the Act the learned trial Court has cancelled the Patta made in favour of the revisionist Smt. Sureshwati on 12288. Aggrieved by this order Smt. Sureshwati preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Meerut Division. Learned Additional Commissioner on 20588 held that the preparation of Z.A. Form 57Ka and 57Kha was mandatory and also held that the relevant rules have not been complied with before the resolution was passed and accordingly revision was dismissed. Aggrieved by this order, revisionist preferred the present revision.

Both the Courts below have held that the resolution dated 11281 is not in accordance with rules and the relevant sections of the Act. Munadi and Agenda have not been done in accordance with the law and have also held that the case of the revisionist is not covered under Section 198 (1 )(a) of the Act. After a perusal of the record, it is found that the death certificate in thesignatureof Lt. Colonel B.S. Mangat (Paper No. 15/1) dated 15777 is on record and also a condolence message in the signature of D.P. Honjan Captain OO Signal 17, Assam Rifles (Paper No. 15/2) dated 13777 is on record. The composite Agenda and Munadi (Paper No. 15/4) is also on recored which shows that the Munadi was issued on 521981 in which the place and time of meeting was also mentioned. Collector did not accept this Paper No. 15/''4asacomposite resolution and the Agenda and Munadi only on the ground that there is no mention of Khasra and the area of the land which was to he allotted but this is very technical point on the basis of which the resolution cannot be considered to be illegal. A composite Agenda and Munadi is proved by the paper No. 15/4. The case of the revisionist is very well covered under Section 1981 (1)(a) because she is war widow and war widow''s case should be considered sympathitically and on humantarian grounds." Except this disputed land the revisionist has no other land for her livelihood. True copy of the resolution dated 11 281 is also on record i.e. paper No. 15/6. The relevant receipt is also on record which is (paper No. 15/7) and the patta which was certified by the Kanoongo and the Pradhan Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti is also on record which is (paper No. 15/8). (Paper No. 15/9) is also a receipt which had been issued in the signature of SubRegistrar Dahri to show that the leasedeed in question was resigtered in the office of the SubRegistrar, Dadri Ghaziabad. The opinion of both the Courts below is not based on the fact and evidence on record. They technically observed that Rule 173, Z.A. Rules had not been complied with. The intention of such rules is to intimate the members and the persons eligible for the allotment to assemble on such and such dale and at such and such place. Paper No. 15/4 contains a sort of information which is required before the resolution is passed. When the case of the present revisionist is covered under Section 198 (1)(a) the preparation of Z.A. Form 57Ka and 57Kha is not mandatory. Hence the opinion expressed by both the Courts below regarding the resolution dated 11281 is against the fact and law.

The observation made in the preceding paragraphs compels me to interfere with the findings given by both the Courts below and accordingly the revisioin is allowed, the judgment dated 20588 and 12288 are hereby set aside; the resolution dated 11281 is held to be according to law.

Revision allowed.