S.P.PANDEY, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act (here in after referred to as the Act) preferred against the judgment and order dated 28-9-1996, passed by the. learned Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in revision peti­tion No. 11 of 1995-96/Lalitpur, arising out of the order dated 31-8-1995 passed by the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur in the proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that suo moto proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act for cancellation of the lease in question granted in favour of the opposite party, Ram Gopal were initiated on the report of the Tehsil, concerned, wherein it has been alleged that since the lease­holder is a minor boy of 12 years of age and a student, the Patta is illegal. On notice, the opposite party contested the proceed­ings. The learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur, after completing the requisite formalities, cancelled the lease in question and ordered the land in dispute to vest in the Gaon Sabha, concerned, by means of his order dated 31-8-1995. Aggrieved by this order, a revision petition was preferred. The learned Commissioner dis­missed the revision. Hence, this second revision petition before the Board. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned DGC (R) appearing for the State of U.P. and have also perused the record on file. For the revisionists, it was contended that the learned Courts, below have erred in holding the revisionists, as minor, as from the Kutumb-registcr, his date of birth is shown as 24-10-1973 and hence he was major at the time of the allotment in ques­tion; that the order passed by the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur, is no order, in the eyes of law as he has no authority, in law to enquire into or not adjudicate upon the matter, in question and the orders passed subsequently by the learned Commissioner, in revision is also illegal and void ab-initio and as such, the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below are not maintainable and the revision petition deserves to be allowed on this count alone. In support, reliance has been placed on the case-law, reported in 1996 RD 190 (DB, H.C.). In reply, the learned DGC (R) urged that the concur­rent finding of fact, recorded by t'he learned two Courts below in respect of the minority of the revisionist cannot be up set at this second rcvisional stage, as the im­pugned orders have been passed after due-consideration of facts and circumstances of the instant case as well as the evidence on record and the learned Courts below were perfectly justified in rendering the same and as such, this revision petition having no force, does not call for any inter­ference by this Court and deserves to be dismissed outright.
(3.) I have carefully and closely ex­amined the submissions made before me by the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned DGC (R) and the relevant records, on file. A bare perusal of the records clearly reveals that the learned Collector, Lalitpur vide his order dated 16-4-1994, ordered the case to be registered and notices to be issued and the show-cause notice was issued to the op­posite party, Ram Gopal the same day. After completing the requisite formalities, the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur has finally disposed of the proceedings by means of his order dated 31-8-1995, can­celling the lease in question and vested the land in dispute in the Gaon Sabha, con­cerned. As per the dictum of law enun­ciated in the case law, reported in 1996 RD 190 (DB. B.C.), only the Collector has authority in law, to enquire into and to adjudicate upon the matter, in question and the Additional Collector has no authority, in law, to do so. It clearly follows that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur and the subsequent order passed by the learned Commissioner, in revision peti­tion are certainly without jurisdiction and void ad-initio and as such the same cannot be allowed to sustain and the revision peti­tion deserves to be allowed on the point of jurisdiction only. In these circumstances, I need not enter into the merits of the in­stant case.;