S.P.PANDEY, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act (here in after referred to as the Act), preferred against 'the judg­ment dated 31-12-1999 passed by the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur in case No. 198 of 1998-99 under Section 198 (4) of the Act, canceling the lease granted in favour of the revisionist.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that on the tehsil report suo moto proceedings for cancellation of the lease granted in favour of the revisionist were initiated under Section 198 (4) of the Act on the ground of irregular allotment. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite formalities cancelled the lease in question on 31-12-1999 and also ordered the land in question to be recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha in revenue papers. It is against this order that this revision petition has been preferred before the Board. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned DGC (R) appearing for the State of U.P. and have also perused the record on file. For the revisionist, it was contended that the evidence adduced by the revisionist in his favour proves to the hilt that the revisionist was a resident of village Tikara Tiwari and not of village Kumchri and the learned trial Court without taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence on record, has cancelled the lease in question ; that the Lckhpal in his state­ment (paper No. 38 of the trial Court's file) has also supported the case of the revisionist that he is a resident of village Tikara Tiwari ; that the proceedings for cancellation of the lease in dispute is clear­ly time barred as the lease in question was granted on 29-1-1988 whereas on the tehsil report the case was ordered to be registered and notice under Section 198 (4) of the Act to be issued to the revisionist on 4-1-1999 that in view of the amended provisions contained under sub-section (6) of Section 198 (4) of the U.P. Act XXIV of 1986, dated 4-12-1986 the cancellation proceedings in question are time barred ; that the learned Additional Collector has no authority in law to cancel the lease in question under Section 198 (4) of the Act as only the Collector is empowered to do so that in the instant case the learned Additional Collector has by means of his order dated 31-12-1999, cancelled the lease in question granted infavour of the revisionist and as such the impugned judg­ment and order is clearly without jurisdic­tion and void. In support of his conten­tions he has relied upon the case laws reported in 1993 RD 233 and 1996 RD190 (DB.HC). It was further urged that in view of the aforesaid contentions this revision petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In reply the learned DGC (R) has submitted that the revision petition should be dis­posed of in view of the case laws referred to above by the learned Counsel for the revisionist.
(3.) I have carefully and closely ex­amined the submissions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and the relevant records on file. On an examina­tion of the record, it is manifestly clear that the then Collector, Lalitpur has ordered the case to be registered and notice to be issued under Section 198 (4) of the Act on 4-1-1999 while the lease in question has been granted in favour of the revisionist on 29-1-1988 and as such the instant proceed­ings under Section 198(4) of the Act arc clearly time barred. The learned trial Court should have looked into the matter and initiated the proceedings of the instant case if the matter in question was with in time for initiating the aforesaid proceed­ings. In view of the provisions as contained in U.P. Act XXIV of 1986 dated 4-12-1986 the cancellation proceedings should have been initiated with in 5 years from the date of the execution of the lease i.e. 29-1-1988. Considering the entire facts and cir­cumstances of the instant case the aforesaid contention raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist concerning limitation has much force. These proceed­ings should have been initiated against the revisionist in consonance with the provisions of law on the subject. The learned trial Court has ceased to have any powers to initiate the instant proceedings against the revisionist as per the provisions of law.;