S.P.PANTLEY, j. - (1.) THIS is a refer­ence, dated 20-12-1984, made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, with his recommenda­tion that the order, dated 18-2-1984, passed by the learned trial Court be set aside and the lease, grained in favour of the revisionist, be ordered to be maintained.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that. Moto to proceedings for cancellation of the aibre said lease were initiated on Tfchsil report under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act (here in after referred to as the Act), on the ground of irregular allotment. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite formalities can celled the aforesaid lease on 18-2-1984. Aggrieved by this order, a revision petition was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner has made this reference, dated 20-12-1985, with his aforesaid recommendation. 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 reference be accepted, revision petition be allowed and the aforesaid order dated 18-2-1984, passed by the learned trial Court, be set aside. Moreover, it was further con­tended that the order, dated 18-2-1984 passed by the learned trial Court is totally void and without jurisdiction as on a perusal of the trial Court's record, it is clear that the then Additional Collector, Lalitpur has ordered the case to be registered and the notice to be issued to the opposite party on 10-11-1982, that the show-cause notice has been issued under the undated signatures of the Reader/ARA to Additional Collector, Lalitpur, that the learned Additional Col­lector, Lalitpur had no authority in law to pass the aforesaid order for the case, to be registered and notice to be issued to the opposite party and, likewise, his Reader/ARA too has noauthorityin lawto issue the aforesaid notice and as such, the cancellation proceedings, initiated against the revisionist under Section 198(4) of the Act, are totally void ab-initio and the aforesaid order, dated 18-2-84, passed by the learned Collector, Lalitpur is totally void and without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. In support of his conten­tions, he has cited the case law, reported in 1996 RD 190 (DB. HC) In reply, the learned DGC(R) urged that the case may be decided in view of the case law, referred to above by the learned counsel for the revisionist.
(3.) I have carefully and closely ex­amined the contentions, raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned DGC (R) and the relevant records, on file. On a close examination of the record, it is crystal clear that the learned Additional Commissioner had made this reference, recommending that the aforesaid order, dated 18-2-1984, passed by the learned trial Court, be set aside as no irregularity has been com­mitted, while executing the aforesaid lease in favour of the revisionist. Moreover, a bare perusal of the record reveals that the then Additional Collector, Lalitpur has ordered the case to be registered and notice to be issued to the opposite party, on 10- 11-1982, in the instant case. In addition to this, the Reader/ARA to the Additional Collector, Lalitpur has issued the show-cause notice to the lease-holder Parmanand under his undated signature, while this show-cause notice should have been issued under the signatures of the then Colleclor,Lalitpur and, likewise, the aforesaid order for registration of the case and issuance of the notice to the opposite party.should also have been passed by him, in view of the dictum of law enunciated by the Hon'blc High Court (DB) referred to above. As such the aforesaid order, passed by the learned trial Court is not sus­tainable in law.;