S.P.PANDEY, J. - (1.) THIS is a ref­erence, dated 12-3-1997 made by the learned Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in respect of the revision petition No.137 of 1995-96/Lalitpur, with his recommendation that the revision peti­tion be allowed, the order passed by the learned trial Court in proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z. A. and L.R. Act (here in after referred to as the Act), cancell­ing the lease in question, be set aside and the lease be maintained as before.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are that suo moto proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act for cancellation of the lease, granted in favour of the revisionist were initiated on the report of the Tehsil, concerned. Show-cause notice was issued, in response to which the lease-holder contested the proceedings, by filing his objections. But he did not appear before the Court on the date, fixed for arguments, while the learned DGC (R) was present and the case proceeded ex-pane against him. The learned Collector, Lalitpur, after complet­ing the requisite formalities, cancelled the lease, in question and ordered the land, in dispute, to be recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha, as jungle and banjar on 26-3-1996. Aggrieved by this order, a revision petition was preferred. The learned Com­missioner vide his referring order dated 12-3-1997, has made this reference to the Board with his aforesaid recommenda­tion. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as the earued DGC (R) and have also perused the record, on file. For the revisionist, sup­porting the reference, it was contended that the learned trial Court has erred in law in ordering the land in dispute to be recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha, concerned; that the impugned order is no order in the eyes of law, as no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the revisionist, which is against the principle of natural justice; that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law, as the instant proceedings are time-barred; that the revisionist was an eligible person for the grant of the lease in question and the learned trial Court has erred in holding otherwise; that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Collector, Lalitpur against the facts, circumstances and evidence, on record of the instant case and as such the same cannot be sustained in law. In reply.the learned DGC (R) urged that the learned trial Court was perfectly justified in cancelling the lease in ques­tion, as the same has been granted in viola­tion of the procedure, laid down under rules, on the subject and the learned Com­missioner has erred in making this refer­ence, which is self-contradictor)' and as such, this reference deserves to be rejected and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed outright.
(3.) I have closely and carefully ex­amined the submissions, made before me by the learned Counsel for the parties and the relevant records, on file. A bare perusal of the record clearly reveals that on the report of the Tehsil, concerned, suo mow proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act for cancellation of the lease, granted in favour of the revisionists, were initiated. The learned Collector, Lalitpur vide his order dated 15-2-1995, ordered the case to be registered and notices to be issued to the panics, concerned, in com­pliance of which show-cause notices were issued and objections were filed by the revisionist. It appears that none was present on behalf of the revisionist on the date fixed for hearing while the learned DGC (R) was present. After hearing the learned DGC (R), the learned Collector, Lalitpur came to the conclusion that the aforesaid lease was granted in violation of the procedure, laid down under Rule 173 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules and as such, the same is liable to be cancelled. He is of the opinion that no Munadi as required in law, was done as the same was made on i lie-very day of the meeting. Further, nor plot numbers were indicated in the Munadi and agenda. Moreover, the land, in dispute is recorded as jungle, in the revenue records. The learned Commissioner did not agree with the learned trial Court and has recommended to set it aside, as no spot inspection was conducted by the learned trial Court before passing the impugned order. He is of the opinion that except plot No. 1273, lease in respect of other plots may be maintained.;