S.P.PANDEY, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act (here in after referred to as the Act) preferred against the judg­ment and order dated 30-5-2000 passed by the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur in case No. 6 of 1998-99 under Section 198 (4) of the Act, cancelling the lease in ques­tion granted in favour of the revisionist.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that on the tehsil report the proceed­ings for cancellation of lease granted in favour of the revisionist, Prakash under Section 198 (4) of the Act were initiated on the ground that the settlement area of the plot No. 1030 was 22.41 acres and no area is left after the allotment to other allottees of the village concerned for allotment to the revisionist. Notices to show cause were issued to the revisionist as well as the LMC concerned to show cause as to why the aforesaid lease be not cancelled. The revisionist contested the case and alleged inter alia that the allotment had been made as per the rules. LMC did not contest the case. The learned additional Collector, Lalitpur after completing the requisite formalities, cancelled the lease in question and ordered for expunction of the name of the revisionist from the revenue records. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed. 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 records on file. For the revisionist it was contended that the revisionist, Prakash was granted the lease in question on 15-7-1992 for an area of 2 acres; that the case has been ordered to be registered and notice to be issued by the Collector, Lalitpur on 2-11-1998; that the show cause notice has been issued under the signatures of the then Addition­al Collector, Lalitpur and he has also passed the final order on 30-5-2000 can­celling the aforesaid lease granted in favour of the revisionist, Prakash ; that these cancellation proceedings initiated by the learned trial Court are time barred and as such the learned trial Court should have examined the matter and initiated the proceedings in the instant case if the matter in question was with in time for initiating the aforesaid proceedings ; that as per the provisions contained in U.P. Act No. XXIV of 1986 dated 4-12-1986, the cancellation proceedings should have been initiated with in five years from the date of the execution of the lease Le. 15-7-1992; that the aforesaid impugned order is also void and without jurisdiction in view of the case law reported in 1996 RD 190 (DB) (HC); that the lekhpal concerned in his cross-examination has Dearly ad­mitted that Mool Chand's application for exchange was rejected on 24-8-1991 by the learned trial Court and the learned Addi­tional Commissioner has allowed the aforesaid application on 25-9-1993 in favour of Mool Chand and as such it is manifestly clear that after the grant of the aforesaid lease in favour of Prakash, lease­holder, the aforesaid exchange has been allowed and Mool Chand got 3.66 acres land from the Gaon Sabha concerned in exchange ; that one Ganesh obtained the lease of 1.20 acres in 1402 Fi.e. in the year 1994-95 ; that in view of the aforemen­tioned facts, it is evidently clear that 3.66 acres plus 1.20 acres land of the Gaon Sabha has gone to Mool Chand and Ganesh respectively ; that without con­sidering the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, the learned trial Court has illegally cancelled the lease in question ; that in these circumstances the instant cancellation proceedings initiated against the revisionist are barred by time, in view of the provisions of Section 198 (6)(b) of the Act; that apart from this the aforesaid impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is void and without jurisdiction which must be set aside ; that the ground taken by the learned trial Court in its order dated 30-5-2000, is also not tenable as after the grant of the aforesaid lease in favour of the revisionist the aforesaid land of the Gaon Sabha has been given in exchange to aforesaid Mool Chand and in allotment to Ganesh ; that considering these facts the aforesaid im­pugned order passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside. In reply, the learned DGC (R) submitted that the case may be decided in view of the case law and the provisions of the Act, referred to above.
(3.) I have closely and carefully ex­amined the submissions made 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 records, it is manifestly clear that the then learned Collector, Lalitpur has or­dered the case to be registered and notices to be issued to the opposite parties on 2-11-1998 while the aforesaid lease has been granted in favour of the revisionist on 15-7-1992 and as such the instant proceedings for cancellation are clearly time barred. The learned trial Court should have examined the matter before the initiation of the instant proceedings. In view of the provisions contained in U.P. Act No. XXIV of 1986 dated 4-12-1986, these proceedings could have been in­itiated with in five years from the date of the aforesaid allotment Le. 15-7-1992. In order to appreciate the facts of the instant case, the aforesaid order dated 2-11-1998 is reproduced as under:"Swamev Karyavahi kc adharpar vad darj register Ho. An. Slrre. Notice clltara 198 (4) jo. VLAdlii. jari ho. Patravali dinank 3-12- 98 ko prastut ho. Sd/- Illegible Collector, Lalitpur 2-11-98" From the aforesaid order, it is amply clear that this order does not mention any valid and solid reason as to why these proeeedings were initiated beyond the prescribed time limit. Moreover, the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur has issued the aforesaid show cause notice to the opposite party under his undated sig­natures and by means of his order dated 30-5-2000, he was cancelled the aforesaid lease while he had no authority in law to enquire into and adjudicate upon the mat­ter in question. In these circumstances the aforesaid impugned order is clearly without jurisdiction and void as per the dictum of law enunciated by the Hon'ble High Court (DB.Alld.) in the ease law reported in 1996 RD 190 (DB)(HC). In addition to this on coming to merits of the case, I find that the learned trial Court has mentioned in its order dated 30-5-2000 that the lease was granted in favour of the lessee, Ganesh for 1.20 acres in 1402Fasli while the aforesaid lease was granted in favour of the revisionist, Prakash on 15-7-1992. Like wise, the application for exchange moved on behalf of Mool Chand was rejected on 24-8-1991 by the learned trial Court but on revision, the learned Additional Commissioner allowed the aforesaid application for exchange on 25-9-1993. As such on a perusal of the record, I find that the aforesaid allotment to Ganesh has been made after the aforesaid date of the lease, granted in favour of the revisionist, Prakash and the application for exchange moved by Mool Chand has been allowed by the learned Additional Commissioner on 25-9-1993, after the elate of allotment to the revisionist. No cogent and convincing ground have been set forth as to why in the aforementioned circumstances the instant proceedings had to be initiated against the revisionist, Prakash.;