The absence of evidence of consolidation operations in the village was crucial in determining the validity of the sale-deed and the outcome of the case.

These are two references dated October 16, 1995 in respect of the revisions No. 84-85/94-95, District Moradabad made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad with his recommen dation that the revision be allow and the order passed by the learned trial Court be set aside. As the facts and the parties of these references are the similar as such these references are being decided by a common judgment and order. Reference No. 27 of 1995-96 shall be a leading case.

2. Brief and relevant facts of the case are that on 22-12-93 the learned S. D. M. , Chandausi District Moradabad passed an order under Section 154/166/167/168a of UPZA and LR Act, whereby the sale- deed executed in respect of the half share in the land admeasuring 4. 40 hectare in favour of the revisionist Smt. Ram Beti has been held invalid being in contravention of Sec tion 168-A of UPZA and LR Act and the aforesaid half share has been vested in the U. P. State. Later on a restoration applica tion was moved on 27-5-94. The learned trial Court dismissed this application. Ag grieved by the aforesaid orders two revision were preferred against the aforesaid orders dated 22-12-93 and dated 27-5-94. The learned Additional Commis sioner has made these references along with the aforesaid recommendation that the aforesaid orders passed by the learned trial Court be set aside.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records on file. For the revisionist it was vehemently contended that the village concerned has not been under consolidation operations, as such this case shall not be hit by the provision of Section 168a of UPZA and LR Act, that no evidence has been adduced by the O. P. (U. P. State) as to the consolida tion operations effected in the vilalge con demned as such this reference be accepted. In support of his contention he has cited the case laws reported in RD 1983 page 272 and RD 1992 page 117. In reply, the learned DGC (R) appearing for the U. P. State submitted that the order passed by the learned trial Court be maintained.

4. I have carefully and closely con sidered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and have also gone through the relevant records on file. From a bare perusal of the records it

is manifestly clear that there is nothing on record to show that the con cerned village has been under consolida tion operations. The learned Additional Commissioner has properly examined the points at issue considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I find that this reference is worthy of being ac cepted. Revision deserves to be allowed and the aforesaid orders passed by the learned Courts below are liable to be set aside. No force is found in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the OP.

5. Consequently, this reference is ac cepted, revision is allowed and the aforesaid orders passed by the learned trial Court arc hereby set aside. Let the records be returned to the Court concerned. Stay order, if any, is hereby vacated. This order shall govern reference No. 28 of 1995-96/moradabad also.

Revision allowed

.