S.P.PANDEY, j. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act preferred against the judgment and order dated 22-12-1999 passed by the learned trial Court in the proceedings initiated under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that proceedings for cancellation of the lease granted in favour of the revisionist were initiated on Tehsil report. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial, cancelled the aforesaid lease on 28-12-1985. Aggrieved by this order, the State of U.P. preferred a revision. The learned lower revisional Court sent a reference to the Board with the recommendation that the lease of 0.42 decimal be cancelled. By means of the order dated 30-7-1997, passed by the Board, the matter was remanded to the learned trial Court for disposal in consonance with the provisions of the law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing and adducing evidence in support of their claims to the parties concerned. The learned trial Court by means of its order dated 22-12-1999 has cancelled both the leases granted in favour of the revisionist. Aggrieved by this order, this revision petition has been preferred. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as 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 two leases were granted to the revisionist; one on 11-2- 1964 for an area 5.10 acres and another on 25-12-1965 for an area 5.33 acres; that a case for initiating proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act against the revisionist was ordered to be registered and notice to be issued by the then Additional Collector, Lalitpur vide his order dated 19-11-1979; that the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur discharged the notice and held the leases valid vide his order dated 28-10-1985; that on a revision preferred by the State of U.P., the matter was referred to the Board with the recommendation that the lease for an area of .42 acre be cancelled; that by its order dated 30-7-1997, the Board remanded the matter to the learned trial Court for decision in accordance with law; that the learned trial Court issued a fresh show-cause notice; that the issuance of fresh show-cause notice is against the provisions of Section 198 (6)(a) of the UPZA and LR Act; that as per the aforesaid provisions, in the case of an allotment of land made before November 10, 1980 the show-cause notice could be issued before the expiry of a period of seven years from the said date as the lease in question has been granted before November 10, 1980; that the aforesaid show-cause notice was barred by time and as such the subsequent proceedings are without jurisdiction and void; that the land acquired by the allottee after the grant of the leases will not be taken into consideration for cancellation proceedings but the learned trial Court has illegally cancelled the lease granted in favour of the revisionist after including the land acquired by the revisionist after the date of the aforesaid lease; that the revisionist had 1.36 acres land in his share prior to the grant of the leases and including the land under leases the total area comes to 1.36 + 10.43 = 11.79 acres which is less than the prescribed limit i.e. 12.50 acres in Bundelkhand area; that in these circumstances, the aforesaid impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside on the points of jurisdiction, limitation as well as on merits also. The whole proceedings of the instant case have been rendered void ab initio by the aforesaid order dated 19- 11-1979, passed by the then learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur, ordering the case to be registered and notice to be issued to the opposite party in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad (DB) reported in 1996 RD 190. Apart from this in support of his contentions he has cited also the case-laws reported in 1990 RD 70 and 1993 RD 233. In reply the learned DGC (R) submitted that the order passed by the learned Court below be maintained.
(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned DGC (R) and have also gone through the relevant records on file. A close scrutiny of the records reveals that initially the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur has ordered the case to be registered and notice to be issued to the opposite party on 19- 11-1979. The notice has been sent to the revisionist under the signatures of the Ahalmad to the Additional Collector, Lalitpur whereas as per the provisions of Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act, only the Collector is empowered to enquire into the matter in question and adjudicate upon the same. Neither the learned Additional Collector had any authority in law to order the case to be registered and notice to be issued to the opposite party nor was the aforesaid Ahalmad to the Additional Collector legally authorised to send the show-cause notice to the revisionist under his signatures in view of the provisions contained under Section 198 (4) of Act I of 1951 and as such the subsequent proceedings taken against the revisionist (lease- holder) were void ab initio. In these circumstances the aforesaid impugned order passed by the learned Court below is vitiated in law.;