- (1.) THIS is a revision petition preferred against the judgment and order dated 19-3-1991 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, arising out of an order dated 6-3-1987 passed by the learned trial Court in the proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that on tehsil report these proceedings for cancellation of the lease granted in favour of the revisionist were initiated under Section 198 (4) of the Act on the ground that the revisionist is resident of outside the circle. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial cancelled the aforesaid lease on 6-3-1987. On a revision the learned Additional Commissioner dismissed the revision too on 19-3-1991. 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 the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur ordered the case to be registered and notice to be issued to the opposite party, Bhaiya Lal on 15-7-1980; that the additional Collector has no authority in law to enquire in and to adjudicate upon the matter in question while only the Collector is authorised to do so and as such the proceedings of the instant case has been rendered void ab initio as enunciated by the Hon'ble High Court in the decision reports in 1996 RD 190 (DB); that the learned trial Court without considering the provisions of the law existing at the time of the grant of the lease, cancelled the lease vide its order dated 6-3-1987; that the provisions of the law existing at the time of the grant of lease should be considered but in the present case the lease in question was granted on 30-4-1974 i. e. 1381-82f and at that time there was a clause (i) of Section 198 (1) of the Act under which any other person is mentioned as per which even a person living outside the circle could be allotted the land; that this provision was deleted by U. P. Act VIII of 1975 dated 19-8-1975; that this view finds support from the decisions reported in 1991 RD 56, 1987 RD 124, 1988 RD 430 and 368, 1986 RD 439; that there is nothing on the record to show that any person of the circle was desirous of taking land in question and was present at the time of the meeting for grant of the lease; that no positive evidence has been adduced by the opposite party to prove the fact that the aforesaid lease has been granted in favour of the revisionist at the cost of other landless agricultural labourers; that the learned trial Court has committed illegality in cancelling the aforesaid lease and the learned lower revisional Court has also committed illegality in affirming the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court; that other land came to the revisionist after grant of the lease in question which cannot be considered in the proceedings for cancellation of the aforesaid lease as it is the settled principle of law that the land prior to grant of lease would be considered and not the land acquired after the grant of the lease as held in the decision reported in 1990 RD 70; that eve then the learned Courts below have committed illegality in considering the land which came to the revisionist in 1384f after the grant of the lease; that the learned trial Court has discussed the Rule 173-176 of the UPZA and LR Rules which have not been pleaded by the opposite party and as such the learned trial Court has committed an illegality in discussing the aforesaid rules beyond the purview of the pleading in the pliant. In support of his contentions he has cited the case laws reported in AIR 1977 SC 890 and 1993 RD 414. In reply the learned DGC (R) appearing for the State of U. P. urged that the finding of fact recorded by the learned Courts below be maintained. I have closely and carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant records on file. On a close scrutiny of the record, it is crystal clear that the aforesaid contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist have much force. The learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur has ordered the case to be registered and notice be issued to the opposite party. As per the dictum of law uninitiated by the Hon'ble High Court in the decision reported in 1996 RD 190 (DB), these proceedings have been rendered void ad initio as the Additional Collector has no authority in law to enquire into the matter in question. In addition to this under Section 198 (4) of the Act only the Collector is empowered to enquire into and to adjudicate upon the same and as such the subsequent proceedings taken against the aforesaid lease holder were also void ab intio. Apart from this as per the provisions of law existing at the time of the grant of the lease contained in clause (i) of Section 198 (1) of the Act, any person living outside the circle could be allotted the land and there was no condition prescribed that the lease could only be granted to the persons living within the circle. Later on, this provisions was deleted by UP Act VIII of 1975 dated 19-8-1975. On examination of the relevant record and the aforesaid impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below, I find that they have miserably failed to consider the matter in question in consonance with the provisions of law existing at the time of the grant of lease. It is worth-while to mention here that no cogent and positive evidence has been adduced to establish the fact that the aforesaid lease was granted in favour of the revisionist, Bhaiya Lal at the cost of other agricultural labourers or any landless agricultural labourer moved any application to have the land in question allotted to the revisionist. 6. Having scrutinised the matter in question, I find that in view of the discussion made hereinabove, I need not enter into the merits further in the instant case as these proceedings have been rendered void ab initio and as such the aforesaid impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below are totally void and without jurisdiction. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the instant case,i come to the conclusion that this revision petition having force is liable to be allowed on the point of jurisdiction. 6. In consequence, this revision petition is accordingly, allowed and the aforesaid impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below are hereby set aside. The lease in question is maintained as before. Let records be returned forthwith to the Courts concerned. Revision allowed. .;