S.P.PANDEY, j. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act (here in after referred to as the Act) preferred against the order dated 18-5-1992 passed by the learned Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi arising out of an order dated 16-12-1988 passed by the learned trial Court in the proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that these proceedings for cancellation of the lease granted in favour of Munna were initiated on lehsil report under Sec­tion 198 (4) of the Act on the ground that he had 6.56 acres land since before the grant of the aforesaid lease. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite formalities cancelled the aforesaid lease on 16-12-1988, Aggrieved by this order a revision was preferred. The learned Com­missioner has upheld the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court and dis­missed the revision on 18-5-1992. Hence this second revision petition. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record on file. For the revisionist, it was contended that Sukke, father of the revisionist was granted lease in question vide revolution "dated 10-6-1970 ; that the case was ordered to be registered by the Additional Collector, Lalitpur vide his order dated 1-7-1982 and he has also can­celled the lease in question vide .his order dated 16-12-88 ; that as per the dictum of law enunciated by the Hon'ble High Court in decision reported in 1996 RD 190 (DB), the Additional Collector has no authority in law either to enquire into or to adjudi­cate upon the matter in question and in these circumstances the aforesaid im­pugned order passed by the learned Addi­tional Collector, Lalitpur is without juris­diction and void and these proceedings in the instant case have been rendered void ah initio to and as such the whole proceedings in the present case are visited in law ; that considering the aforesaid facts and cir­cumstances the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below be set aside. In reply the learned DGC (R) appearing for the State of U.P. urged that as per the aforesaid case law, the case must be disposed of.
(3.) I have closely and carefully ex­amined the aforesaid submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and the relevant records on file. From a bare perusal of the record, it is amply clear that on 1-7-1982, the learned Additional Col­lector, Lalitpur has ordered the case to be registered and notice to be issued to the opposite party. It is also worth-while to mention here that no show cause notice-appears to have been issued by the learned trial Court to the opposite parly as it is not available on record while it was mandatory upon the learned trial Court to issue a show cause notice to the opposite party as per the provisions of Section 198 (5) of the Act. Having closely examined the matter in question, I find that the learned Addition­al Collector has passed the final order on 16-12-1988 cancelling the aforesaid lease granted in favour of the revisionist whereas as per the provisions under Sec­tion 198 (4) of the Act, only the Collector is empowered to enquire into the matter in .question and to adjudicate upon the same while the Additional Collector has or­dered the case to be registered and notice to be issued to the opposite party as well as has passed in final order on 16-12-88. In these circumstances, the subsequent proceedings taken by the learned lower revisional Court against the aforesaid lease holder were void ab initio and the aforesaid order in totally void and without jurisdic­tion in view of the aforesaid case law.;