S.P.PANDEY, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition under Sea ion 333-A of UPZA and LR Act preferred against the judgment and order dated 12-3-97 passed by the learned Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi arising out of an order dated 22-3-1996 passed by the learned trial Court in proceedings initiated under Sec­tion 198 (4) of the UPZAand 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, Ram Charan were initiated under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act on the Tehsil report. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial has cancelled the aforesaid lease on 22-3-1996. Aggrieved by this order a revision petition was preferred. The learned Commissioner has upheld the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court and dismissed the revision on 12-3-1997. Hence this second revision petition. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and have also perused the record on file. None appeared on be­half of the opposite-party, (State of U.P.) despite due notice. For the revisionist, it was contended that the revision is Ram Charan was granted a lease in question on 20-12-1989 for an area of 2.33 acres ; that he was a landless agricultural labourer living separately from his father who was alive at the time of the grant of the aforesaid lease ; that as per the Tehsil report dated 10-1-1995 available on the case file of the trial Court, it has been alleged that the share of the revisionist in his father's land 2.76 acres including the leased land exceeded the maximum prescribed limit of 4.68 acres but the learned trial Court has canalled the aforesaid lease or the ground of norcom­pliance of the provisions of Rule 173 of the UPZA and LR Rules ; that the lease in question is dated 20-12-1989 while the Collector, Lalitpur by means of his order dated 20-2-1995 has ordered the case to be registered and notice to be issued on the aforesaid Tehsil report; that in view of the provisions contained under Section 198 (6)(b) of the UPZA and LR Act, these proceedings are time-barred ; that apart from this father is not included in the definition of landless and there cannot be any presumption that a son must have a share in the land of his father while the father is alive ; that the revisionist was major at the time of allotment and as such the father's land cannot be considered to be land of the allottee. In support of his contentions, he has cited the case laws reported in 1990 RD 70, 1984 RD 274 (HC) and 1991 RD(2)404.
(3.) I have closely examined the sub­missions made by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and relevant records on file. On an examination of the record, it is manifestly clear that the then Collector, Lalitpur has ordered the case to be registered and notice to be issued under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act on 20-2-1995 while the lease in question has been granted in favour of the revisionist on 20-12-1989 and as such the instant proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act are clearly time-barred and as such the learned trial Court should have looked into the matter and initiated the proceedings of the instant case if the matter in question was within time for initiating the aforesaid proceedings. In view of the provisions as contained in U.P. Act XXIV of 1986 dated 4-12-1986, the cancellation proceedings should have been initiated within 5 years from the date of the execution of the lease Le. 20-12-1989. Considering the entire facts and circumstan­ces of the instant case the aforesaid conten­tion raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist concerning limitation -has much force. These proceedings should have been initiated against the revisionist in consonance with the provisions of law. The learned trial Court has ceased to have any powers to initiate the instant proceed­ings against the revisionist, as per the provisions of law.;