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 20-9-1991 passed by the learned Additional Commis­sioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi arising out of the judgment and order dated 27-2-1989 passed by the learned trial Court in the proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that these proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act for cancellation of the lease were initiated upon a Tehsil report on the ground of irregular allotment. The learned Addi­tional Collector, Lalitpur by means of his judgment and order dated 27-2-1989 can­celled the aforesaid lease. 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 20-9-1991. Hence this second revision petition. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and have also perused the record on file. None appeared for the U.P. State despite due notice. For the revisionist, it was contended that the im­pugned findings recorded by the learned lower revisional Court are hopelessly per­verse and erroneous in law which are solely based on conjectures and surmises ; that the aforesaid impugned order dated 27-2-1989 has been passed by the learned Addi­tional Collector, Lalitpur who had no legal authority to enquire into and adjudicate upon the matter in question and as such this order is without jurisdiction and void. In support of his contention, he has cited the case lawreportedin 1996 RD 190 (DB) (HC).
(3.) I have closely and carefully ex­amined the aforesaid submissions made by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and relevant records on file. A close scrutiny of the record reveals that the aforesaid lease granted in favour of the revisionist has been cancelled by the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur through his order dated 27-2-1989, In view of the aforesaid case law this order dated 27-2-1989 rendered by the learned Additional Col­lector, Lalitpur is totally without jurisdic­tion and void as the Additional Collector was not legally authorised to enquire into and adjudicate upon the matter in ques­tion under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the instant case, I need not enter into the merits of the present case.;