UMMEDA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N. S. Ravi, Member. This revision has been filed against an order passed by Additional Collector Lalitpur under Section 198 (4) of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act on 24-4-1991 and subsequent order dated 7-5-2003. By order dated 24-4- 1991 the lease in favour of the revisionist was cancelled by the Additional Collector on the ground that on the date of allotment the revisionist was having 18. 48 acre of agricultrual land in his name and as such he was not eligible for allotment and also he was not resident of the concerned area. It is evident from the perusal of the order that notice was duly served upon the revisionist who filed his objections but abstained on the date of hearing. So, therefore, case was proceeded ex-parte thense-forth against the revisionist. Aggrieved by the order the revisionist filed a restoration application on 18-8-2000 which was also dismissed on 28-4-2001 for non-prosecution and non appearance. Again the revisionist filed another restoration application on 1-6-2001 which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 7-5- 2003 on the ground that the original order dated 24-4-1991 was not ex-parte and the revisionist had full knowledge of the case and secondly the restoration application dated 8-8-2000 was highly time barred as no justification for taking so much time in filing the restoration application was given in the application.

(2.) THE Learned Advocate of the revisionist has argued that the Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to cancel a patta and it is the Collector alone who can take action under Section 198 (4) of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. That being so, the order passed by the Additional Collector is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Collector Lalitpur to decide himself as per provisions of law. Revision is disposed of at the admission stage itself. Revision disposed of. .