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 30-3-1996 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner Jhansi Division, Jhansi arising out of an order dated 22-9-1992 passed by the learned trial Court in the proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the UPZAand LR Act.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the applicant-revisionist moved an application under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act before the learned trial Court with the prayer that the lease granted in favour of the opposite party halloo for plot No. 194admeasuringl.33 acres be cancelled because of an irregular allotment. The learned trial Court by means of its order dated -22-9-1992 rejected the aforesaid application dated 21-9-1992 being time-barred and baseless. Aggrieved by this order passed by the learned trial Court, a revision was preferred. The learned lower revisional Court through its order dated 3-3-1996 upheld the aforesaid impugned order and dismissed the revision. Hence this second revision petition. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the records on file. For the revisionist it was contended that the lease deed granted in favour of the Respondent No. 1 in the year 1983 was void ab initio and as such the Courts below have wrongly rejected the application for setting aside the lease granted in favour of the respondent ; that the learned Courts below have not taken into consideration the material and relevant facts and circumstance of the in­stant case and illegally and unreasonably rejected the application for cancel a lion of the lease granted in favour of the respon­dent, Bhalloo ; that considering the material irregularity and illegality in rejecting the application of the revisionist for setting aside the order granting the lease in favour of the Respondent No. 1, the aforesaid impugned orders should be set aside. In reply, the learned Counsel for the contesting opposite-party submitted that the lease in question was executed In favour of the Respondent No. 1 in 1983 while the application for cancellation of the aforesaid lease was moved on 2, 1 9-1992 which is quite time barred as the same could legally be moved by 1990 and as such the aforementioned orders passed by the learned Courts below must be maintained.
(3.) I have closely and carefully, ex­amined the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and relevant records on file. On an examina­tion of the relevant records it is manifestly clear that the learned Additional Commis­sioner has property and exhaustively ex­amined the' matter in question in correct perspective of law and has recorded a clear and categorical finding to the effect that the aforesaid application for cancellation of the lease is evidently time-barred as it could be moved by 1990 as per the provisions of relevant Saw. I entirely agree with the conclusion drawn by the learned Additional Commissioner in the aforesaid impugned judgment and order dated 30-3-1996. Having closely scrutinised the matter in question, 1 find that the learned Addition­al Commissioner has rightly upheld the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court and dismissed the" revision petition. No error of law-fact or jurisdiction has been committed by him in dismissing the first revision petition preferred by the revisionist. To my mind, the aforesaid impugned order dated 30-3-1996 is just, proper, well-founded and wholly warranted in law and as such it must be sustained.;