S.P.PANDEY, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition preferred against the order dated 28-10-1999 passed by the Ad­ditional Collector, Lalitpur in case No. 247 of 1997-98 under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act (here in after referred to as the Act), cancelling the lease granted in favour of the revisionist.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are ihatsuomoto proceedings for cancella­tion of the lease granted in favour of the revisionist were initiated under Section 198 (4) of the Act on the tehsil report. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite formalities cancelled the aforesaid lease by means of its order dated 28-10-1999. It is against this order that this revision petiiion has been preferred. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned DGC (R) appearing for the State of U.P. and have also perused the record on file. For the revisionist, it was contended that the lease in question was granted in favour of the revisionist on 13-9-1996 for an area 2.52 acres; that vide order dated 3-7-1990, tnc case under Section 198 (4) of the Act was ordered to be registered and notice to be issued to the revisionist; that the show cause notices were issued to the revisionist by the Additional Collector, Lalitpur; that the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur without considering the facts and cir­cumstances of the instant ease, cancelled the aforesaid leases granted in favour of the revisionists vide his order dated 28-10-1999 ; that only the Collector is em­powered to enquire into and to adjudicate upon the matter in question and the Addi­tional Collector has no authority in law to do so in view of the provisions as contained under Section 198 (4) of the Act. In sup­port of his contentions, he has cited the case law reported in 1996 RD 190 (HC,DB) and urged that in view the ver­dict laid down in the aforesaid case law by the Hon'ble High Court, the order dated 28-10-1999 passed by the learned Addi­tional Collector, Lalitpur is liable to be set aside. In reply the learned DGC (R) ap­pearing for the State of U.P. urged that the revisionist petition should be disposed of in view of the case law referred to above by the learned Counsel for the revisionist.
(3.) I have carefully and closely con­sidered the submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant records on file. On a close examination of the relevant record, it is manifestly clear that on the tehsil report suo moto proeeedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act for cancellation of the leases in question were initiated and the case was ordered to be registered and notices to be issued vide order dated 3-7-1990 passed by the Collector, Lalitpur. It is also amply clear that the show cause notices were issued by the learned Addi­tional Collector, Lalitpur on 14-7-1998 and the leases in question were also can­celled by him vide his order dated 28-10-1999. As per the dictum of law enunciated by the Hon'ble High Court (DB) in the case law reported in 1996 RD 190, the proceedings in the instant case have been rendered vitiated and the impugned order dated 28-10-1999 passed by the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur is totally void and without jurisdiction as the Addi­tional Collector has no authority in law to enquire into and to adjudicate upon the matter in question and as such the aforesaid impugned order dated 28-10-1999 passed by the learned Additional Collector, Lalilpur deserves to be set aside.;