S.P.PANDEY, j. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act preferred against the order dated 29-3-1996 passed by the learned Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, arising out of an order dated 29-4-1995 passed by the learned trial Court in the proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that these proceedings for cancellation of the lease granted in favour of the revisionist were initiated on the tehsil report on the ground that the revisionist was a resident of outside the circle concerned. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite formalities, cancelled the aforesaid lease on 29-4-1995. Aggrieved by this order a revision was preferred. The learned Commissioner has upheld the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court and dismissed the revision on 29-3-1996. Hence this second revision petition. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned DGC (R) appearing for the U.P. State and have also perused the record on file. For the revisionist it was contended that the revisionist Ramdin is a resident of village Chadrau as the village Bhagwaha is a deserted village, adjoining the village Chadrau and as such persons of adjoining village Chadrau were granted leases of the vacant land situated in village Bhagwaha; that the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur has ordered the case to be registered and notice to be issued to the opposite party on 1-10-1994 and as such further proceedings in this case are vitiated in law; that the order dated 29-4-1995 cancelling the lease granted in favour of the revisionist has been passed by the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur while he had no authority in law to cancel the aforesaid lease granted in favour of the revisionist; that in view of the case law reported in 1996 RD 190 (DB, HC) the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court is totally void and without jurisdiction; that in these circumstances, this revision petition deserves to be allowed on the point of jurisdiction and on merits as well. In reply, the learned DGC (R) submitted that the order passed by the learned Courts below should be maintained.
(3.) I have closely and carefully examined the contentions relied by the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned DGC (R) and the relevant records on file. On a close examination of the record, it is manifestly clear that the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur has ordered the case to be registered and notice to be issued to the opposite party on 1-10-1994 and his canceled the aforesaid lease granted in favour of the revisionist on 29-4-1995 while only the Collector has power to enquire into and adjudicate upon the matter in question and the Additional Collector has no authority in law either to enquire into or to adjudicate upon the same. As per the dictum of law enunciated by the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad in a decision reported in 1996 RD 190, the instant proceedings for cancellation of the lease granted in favour of the revisionist are void ab initio and the aforesaid order dated 29-4-1995 passed by the learned trial Court is totally void and without jurisdiction and as such this order dated 29-4-1995 is liable to be set aside.;