S.P.PANDEY, J. - (1.) THESE are two revision petitions under Section 333-A of the UPZA and LR Act preferred against the judgment and order dated 20-2-1997 passed by the learned Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi arising out of the orders dated 26-3-1996/22-3-96 passed by the learned trial Court in proceedings in­itiated under Section 198(4) of the UPZA and LR Act. Since the facts and controver­sy involved in these revision petitions are similar as such the same are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. Revision Petition No. 96 of 1996-97/Lalit-pur shall be the leading case.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that on the Tehsil report, these suo moto proceedings were initiated for can­cellation of the lease granted in favour of the revisionists under Section 198(4) of the UPZA and LR Act on the ground that the land held by the lease-holders after the aforesaid lease exceeded the maximum prescribed limit. On the aforesaid Tehsil-report, the Collector ordered the case to be registered and notice to be issued. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite formalities, cancelled the aforesaid leases granted in favour of the revisionists on 26-3-1996/22-3-1996 on the ground of non-compliance of Rule 173 of the UPZA and LR Rules. Aggrieved by this order two revision petitions were preferred separately. The learned Com­missioner by means of his separate orders dated 20-2-1997 has upheld the findings of the learned trial Court and dismissed the revision petitions. Hence these second revision petitions. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionists and have also perused the records on file. None appeared on behalf of the opposite-party State of U.P. despite due notice. For the revisionist, it was contended that the revisionist Suraj was granted the lease in question on 1-6-1993 for an area 1.42 acres and the revisionist, Prakash was granted a lease in question on the same date for an area 1.57 acres ; that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1977 SC 890 and 1993 RD 414 (SC), the Court cannot go beyond the pleadings and cannot make out a new case which has not been pleaded; that as per the report of the Tahsil concerned the ground for cancella­tion of the lease has been mentioned as the land held by the lease-holders including the leased land exceeded the maximum limit of 4.68 acres ; that no other ground for cancellation has been mentioned in the aforesaid Tahsildar's report and as such the learned, trial Court has illegally and unreasonably cancelled the lease granted in favour of the revisionists on the ground of non-compliance of Rule 173 of the UPZA and LR Rules ; that so far as the land held by the father of the revisionist is concerned father is not included in the definition of landless and there cannot be any presumption that a son must have a share in the land in his father while the father is alive; that the revisionists were landless-agricultural labourers and their fathers were alive at the time of the grant of the aforesaid lease in favour of the revisionist and as such the learned trial Court has illegally cancelled the aforesaid leases. In this respect he has invited my attention towards the case laws reported in 1990 RD 70, 1984 RD 274 (HC). It was further con­tended that the father's land cannot be considered to be the land of the allottee when he was major at the time of the allotment and living separately from his father. In this respect he relied upon the case laws reported in 1991 RD (2) 404 and 1990 RD 70. It was further submitted that the LMC, concerned has not been im-pleaded as party to the aforesaid revision petitions.
(3.) I have closely examined the conten­tions raised by the learned counsel for the revisionists and the relevant records on file. A close scrutiny of the records clearly reveals that in the instant case as per the report of the Tehsil available of the trial Court's record for cancellation of the leases concerned the ground mentioned was that the share of the revisionists in their father's land and the leased land ex­ceeded the maximum prescribed limit of 4.68 acres. No other ground for cancella­tion of the leases in question has been mentioned therein. But on examination of the aforesaid orders passed by the learned Courts below it is crystal clear that the learned trial Court has cancelled the aforesaid leases on the ground of only non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 173 of the UPZA and LR Rules. No men­tions has been made herein on the allega­tions as alleged in the aforesaid Tehsil report. In view of the dictum of law as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1977 SC 890, 1993 RD 414 (SC), the learned trial Court has gone beyond the pleadings can­not make out a new case which has not been pleaded and as such the aforesaid orders passed by the learned Courts below are liable to be set aside. Furthermore, it is also worthwhile to mention here that a perusal of the order dated 26-3-1996 passed by the learned trial Court reveals that it has not dealt with the allegation mentioned in the Tehsil report dated 4-1-1995 concerning the revisionists, share in their fathers' land including the leased land exceeded the maximum prescribed limit of 4.68 acres. In view of the case law reported in 1984 RD 274, the Hon'ble High Court has held that the father is not included in the definition of landless. Ex­planation to Section 198 (1) of the UPZA and LR Act reads as follows: "198(1)............... Explanation.-sub-section -For the purposes of this sub-section (1) 'landless' refers to a person who or whose spouse or minor children hold no land as bhumidhar or asami and also held no land as such within two years immediately preceding the date of allotment; and (2) 'agricultural labourer' means a person whose main source of livelihood is agricultural labour; (3)..............." A perusal of this definition clearly shows that the father is not included in the family of landless. In this respect, I find support from the case laws reported in 1990 RD 70, 1991 RD (2) 404 and as such this aforesaid allegation is also not sus­tainable.;