S.P.PANDEY,J. - (1.) THIS is a revision preferred against the judgment and order dated September 22, 1999, passed by the learned Additional Commis­sioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, arising out of an order dated December 31, 1997, passed by the learned trial Court in the proceedings initiated under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act ( here in after referred to as the Act).
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the cases are that the proceedings for cancellation of the lease granted in favour of the revisionist, were initiated under Section 198 (4) of the Act. On the report dated 6-12-1994 of the Deputy DM concerned. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial found that no ir­regularity appears to have been com­mitted, while granting the aforesaid leases and ordered the leases to be maintained as before. Aggrieved by this order, a revision was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner by means of his order dated September 22, 1999 has allowed the revision and remanded the matter to the learned trial Court for decision after re-examination of the Gaon Sabha resolution and the evidence on record. Hence this second revision petition. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionists as well as the learned DGC (R), appearing for the State of U.P. For the revisionists it was contended that the learned trial Court has found the leases granted in favour of the revisionists as valid and regular but the learned lower revisional Court has erroneously and il­legally has set aside the aforesaid order dated 31-12-1997 passed by the learned trial Court, that the aforesaid allotment is quite regular and legal ; that the aforesaid leases were granted in favour of the revisionists on 30-4-1988. It was further submitted that in view of the provisions as contained in sub-section (5) of Section 198 of the Act, no order for cancellation of an allotment of lease shall be made under sub- section (4) unless a notice to show cause is issued and served on the person in whose favour the allotment or lease was made or on his legal representatives; that such notice could be issued before the expiry of a period of five years from the date of such allotment (30-4-1988) ; that the aforesaid impugned order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner is quite unsustainable as there is no justifica­tion in remanding the case to the learned trial Court who will not be able to proceed in accordance with law in the instant case as the prescribed limit for issuance of the aforesaid show cause notice has expired ; that with out ATissuing such show-cause notice to the aforesaid lease holders (revisionists), no order for cancellation of the aforesaid lease can be made and as such the aforesaid impugned order dated 22-9-1999 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner is liable to be set aside; that there is nothing on record to show that any such show-cause notice has been ever is­sued to the revisionists in the instant case; that in the circumstances of the instant case, these cancellation proceedings have been rendered void ab ignitio and as such the aforementioned impugned order passed by the learned lower revisional Court cannot be sustained. In reply the learned DGC (R) appearing for the State of U.P. submitted that the instant case may be decided in view of the provisions of law.
(3.) I have carefully and closely con­sidered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionists as well as the learned DGC (R) and have also gone through the relevant records on file. On a close scrutiny of the records it is crystal clear that on 31-12-1997, the learned trial Court has found the aforesaid teases granted in favour of the revisionists as valid and regular and has ordered the same to be maintained as before, as no irregularity has been found while granting the aforesaid leases in favour of the revisionists.;