S.P.PANDEY, j. - (1.) THIS is a ref­erence dated 5-7-1996 made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi in respect of revision petition No. 35/46 of 1987-88 Lalitpur with his recom­mendation that the order of the learned trial Court by means of which the lease granted in favour of the revisionist has been can­celled in part be maintained.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the cancellation proceedings of the lease grafted in favour of the revisionist were initiated on the Tehsil report. The learned trial Court after completing the req­uisite formalities cancelled the aforesaid lease granted in favour of the revisionists. Aggrieved by this order, a revision was preferred. The learned Additional Com­missioner has made this reference along with his aforesaid recommendation. 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 records on file. The learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the learned trial Court has illegally cancelled the aforesaid lease con­cerning an area of 3.55 acres ; that in the circumstances, the lease of the revisionist be maintained as before. It was further submitted that originally the case was registered by means of the order dated 15-7-19890 passed by the learned Addi­tional Collector, Lalitpur; that in view of the provisions contained under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act and a decision of the Hon'ble High Coi'.rt reported in 1996 RD 190, the Additional Collector has no jurisdiction to enquire into and pass any order for the case to be registered and notice to be issued ; that only the Collector has power to enquire into the matter and adjudicate upon the same ; that in these circumstances, the subsequent proceedings in the instant case are void ab initio ; that the learned Additional Commissioner has inadver­tently mentioned in the operative portion of his order passed by the learned trial Court be maintained while in the body of the aforesaid judgment and order in para 3, the learned Additional Commissioner has manifestly mentioned that the order passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside and the lease of the revisionist is liable to be maintained; that in the case law reported in 1987 RD 61 (BR DB), it was held that it is the jurisdic­tion of the revisional Court to decide the revision petition on merits and not to limit its scope to the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner. In support of his contentions he has cited the case law reported in 1987 RD 61 (BR DB). In reply the learned DGC (R) appearing for the State of U.P. submitted that the order of the learned trial Court be main­tained.
(3.) I have properly examined the sub­missions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and relevant records on file. On a close scrutiny of the records it is .manifestly clear that the learned Addi­tional Commissioner in the third para of his order dated 5-7-1996 has clearly men­tioned that the order dated 27-11-1987 passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside and the whole lease of the revisionist deserves to be maintained. But in the fourth para possibly it has been inadvertently mentioned that the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court be maintained. A bare perusal of the records clearly reveals that the learned trial Court has not properly examined the matter in question in correct perspective of law and has illegally cancelled the lease of the revisionist in part. In fact, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case the lease of the revisionist is liable to be maintained as has been held in para 4 of the aforesaid order dated 5-7-1996 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner. Moreover, it is worthwhile to mention here that the Additional Collector, Lalit­pur by means of his order dated 15-7-1980 has ordered the case to be registered and notice to be issued to the opposite-party and as such further proceedings in the instant case have been rendered vitiated by means of the aforesaid order dated 15-7-1980 passed by the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur.;