S .P.PANDEY,J. - (1.) This is a revision petition preferred against the judgment and order dated 14-8-1989 passed by the learned Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi arising out of an order dated 9-1 -1987 passed by the learned Collector, Lalitpur in the proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LRAct.
(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 under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial found the lease granted in favour of the revisionist in 1958 to be valid. On the contrary, the lease granted in favour of the revisionist in 1970 for an area of 2.90 acres has been found to be irregular and hence cancelled the lease granted in 1970 on 9-1-1987. Aggrieved by this order a revision petition was preferred. The learned lower revisional Court has upheld the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court and dismissed the revision on 14-8-1989. Hence this second revision petition. I have heard the learned Counsel or the revisionist and have also perused the record on file. None appeared on behalf of the State of U.P. despite due notice. For the revisionist, it was contended that in the instant proceedings initiated against the revisionist, the learned Additional Collec­tor has ordered the case to be registered on 13-8-1982 ; that apart from this, the Reader to the Collector, Lalitpur has directed the Tahsildar concerned for is­suance of notice of the lease-holder; that in the circumstances, the proceedings of the instant case have been rendered void ab initio, as the Additional Collector, Lalitpur and the aforesaid Reader to. the Collector, Lalitpur had no authority in law to pass the aforesaid order or to direct any revenue authority in the instant proceed­ings and as such the judgment and order passed by the learned Courts below be set aside and the revision petition be allowed as these orders are without jurisdiction and void ab initio; that from the statement of the Lekhpal concerned it is manifestly clear that the lease holder acquired the remaining land through succession after the grant of the lease concerned; that the remaining land came to the lease holder in 1384F much after the grant of the lease concerned ; that the total area of the aforesaid leases comes to 9.38 acres which is less than the prescribed limit Le. 12.50 acres at the time of the grant of the lease and as such the aforesaid impugned judg­ment and orders be quashed. In support of his contentions, he has referred to the case laws reported in 1990 RD 70, 1988 RD 368, 1996 RD 190 (DB HC Alld) and 1987 RD 199.
(3.) I have carefully and closely ex­amined the aforesaid submissions made by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the relevant records on file. On a scrutiny of the records it is crystal clear that the then learned Additional Collector, Lalit­pur has ordered the case to be registered and notice to be issued vide his order dated 13-5-1982. Likewise, the then Reader to the learned Collector, Lalitpur has in­formed the Tahsildar concerned to issue notice to the lease-holders. In view of the case law reported in 1996 RD 190 (Division Bench HC Alld) the proceed­ings of the instant case are totally void ab initio as neither the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur had any authority in law to pass the aforesaid order in the in­stant proceedings nor was the Reader to the learned Collector, Lalitpur legally authorised to direct the Tehsildar con­cerned to issue notice to the lease-holder. As per the dictum of law enunicated by the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad (DB) in a decision reported in 1996 RD 190, only the Collector is empowered to enquire into the matter and adjudicate upon the same. The learned Additional Collector or the aforesaid Reader to the Collector, Lalit­pur had no authority in law to order the case to be registered and notice to be is­sued or issue direction to the Tehsildar concerned for issuance of the notice to the lease-holder concerned. In the cir­cumstances, the proceedings taken against the revisionist by the learned trial Court as well as the subsequent proceedings have been vitiated in law and are void ab initio.;