S.P.PANDEY, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition preferred against the judgment and order dated 14-10-1988 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, arising out of an order dated 15-7-1986 passed by the learned trial Court in the proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(2.) THESE proceedings were initiated under Section 198 (4) of the Act upon a complaint moved on behalf of one Ramdin for cancellation of the lease, granted in favour of the revisionist. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite formalities found the aforesaid lease irregular and has cancelled the same on 15-7-1986. Aggrieved by this order, a revision petition was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner has upheld the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court and dismissed the revision on 14-10-1988. Hence this second revision petition. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record on file. For the revisionist, it was contended that the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur has cancelled the aforesaid lease on 15-7-1986 while the learned Additional Collector has no authority in law to cancel the same as the Collector should have enquired into and adjudicate upon the matter in question under the relevant provisions of the Act. It was further contended that the order dated 14-10-1988 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner is also liable to be set aside. In support of his contention he has cited the case-law reported in 1996 RD 190 (DB, HC). In reply the learned DGC (R) submitted that the revision petition should be disposed of in view of the aforesaid case-law referred to above the learned Counsel for the revisionist.
(3.) I have carefully and closely examined the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and also the relevant records on file. On an examination of the record, it is crystal clear that the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur has cancelled the aforesaid lease on 15-7-1986. As per the dictum of law enunciated by the Hon'ble High Court in a decision reported in 1996 RD 190, I find much substance in the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the revisionist.;