S.P.PANDEY, j. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition, preferred against the judgment and order dated 25-7-1995 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi arising out of an order dated 30-4-1992 passed by the learned trial Court in the proceedings initiated under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter in short referred to as the Act).
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that these proceedings for cancellation of the lease were initiated suo moto on the ground that the lease holder was resident of outside the circle. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial, cancelled the aforesaid lease granted in favour of the revisionist on 30-4- 1992. Aggrived by this order, a revision was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner has upheld the aforesaid order dated 30-4-1992 and dismissed the revision petition on 25-7-1995. Hence this second revision. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and have also perused the record. None appeared on behalf of the opposite party, U.P. State, despite due notice. For the revisionist it was contended that plot No. 258/4 area 5 acres was acquired by the revisionist under CLRD scheme in 1364F by the order passed by the SDO concerned in CLRD map No. 8 at serial No. 1; that the State of U.P., opposite party has utterly failed to prove the fact that any lease was granted in favour of the revisionist but the learned trial Court has cancelled the alleged lease of the aforesaid plot No. 30-4-1992 and the learned lower revisional Court has neither examined the relevant papers concerning the alleged lease nor has tried to verify the alleged execution of any lease in favour of the revisionist; that there is no evidence on record concerning the grant of any lease in favour of the revisionist as no Munadi, Agenda or resolution or any proof of the proceeding for grant of the alleged lease in favour of the revisionist have been filed by the opposite party and as such no presumption can be drawn that a lease of the aforesaid plot in question has been granted in favour of the revisionist; that on a perusal of the relevant record, it is manifestly clear that no lease has been granted in the instant case, rather the plot No. 258/4 area 5 acres was given under the CLRD Scheme to the revisionist who was recorded as Sirdar by the order of the then SDO concerned; that unless and until it is not established that the revisionist was admitted to the aforesaid land in question under Section 195/198 of the Act, the revisionist cannot be ejected under Section 198 (4) of the Act; that both the Courts below did not care to examine the relevant proceedings of the alleged allotment made in favour of the revisionist and passed the aforesaid order against the revisionist; that in the case law reported in 1992 RD 157, it has been ruled that the land held by a person in any other manner except under Section 195 of the Act is not subject to any enquiry under Section 198 (4) of the Act; that in these circumstances the aforesaid impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below deserve to be set aside and the revisionist is not liable to be ejected under Section 198 (4) of the Act and as such the notice issued under Section 198 (4) of the Act to the revisionist is liable to be dropped; that apart from the aforementioned facts, the instant revision is also liable to be allowed on the point of jurisdiction as the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur has issued the show-cause notice to the revisionist under his own signature and passed the aforesaid order dated 30-4-1992 cancelling the aforesaid alleged lease granted in favour of the revisionist. In support of this contentions, he has cited the case laws reported in 1992 RD 157 and 1996 RD 190 (DB.HC).
(3.) I have closely and carefully examined the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and also the relevant records on file. On a close scrutiny of the relevant record, I find that the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist have much force. There is nothing on the record to show that any proceeding i.e. Munadi, Agenda, resolution etc. were taken for the grant of the lease in favour of the revisionist by the LMC concerned. It is a matter of great concern that the learned trial Court did not care to examine any document concerning the aforesaid allotment made in favour of the revisionist and has rendered the impugned order concerning cancellation of the alleged lease granted in favour of the revisionist and the learned Additional Commissioner has also upheld the aforesaid order, dismissing the revision preferred by the revisionist.;