S.P.PANDEY, j. - (1.) THESE are two revision petitioners preferred against the judgment and orders dated 7-3-1993 and 15- 3-1993 respectively passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, arising out of an order dated 30-3-1991 passed by the learned trial Court in proceedings initiated under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The facts and controversy involved in these two revision petitions being similar, the same are being decided by this common judgment. Revision petition No. 97 of 1993-94 Smt. Kunj Kunwar v. State, be the leading case.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that proceedings for cancellation of the lease granted in favour of the revisionists were initiated under Section 198 (4) of the Act on the Tehsil report on the ground of irregular allotment. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite formalities by means of its order dated 30-3-1991 passed separately cancelled the leases granted in favour of the opposite parties. Aggrieved by these orders two revision petitions were preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner upheld the orders passed by the learned trial Court and dismissed the revision petitions. Hence these two second revision petitions. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionists as well as the learned DGC (R) appearing for the State of U.P. and have also perused the record on file. For the revisionist it was contended that in the revision petition No. 97 of 1993- 94/Lalitpur, a lease was granted in favour of Nanhi Dulaiya wife of Puran Singh on 13-11-1960 for an area 6.25 acres; that after her death Smt. Kunj Kunwar and Smt. Maun Kunwar were substituted; that earlier, the learned trial Court had once cancelled the aforesaid lease and on revision, the Board had remanded the case to the trial Court vide its order dated 30-6-1977; that after remand show-cause notices were issued by the Ahalmad to the Additional Collector, Lalitpur; that the lease granted in favour of the revisionist has been cancelled on the ground of being resident of outside the circle but in reply to the notice, it has been clearly stated that the village Mudiya was a Viran mauza and Mahrauni is the town-area and people of Mahrauni cultivate the land of village Mudiya; that it has also been stated that under category (d) of Section 198 (1) of the Act, 'any other person' was eligible to be granted the lease; that the ground for cancellation of the lease granted in favour of the revisionist was only being a resident of outside the circle; that in these circumstances, the revision petition is liable to be allowed. In revision petition No. 98 of 1993-94/Lalitpur, it was urged that the land in question was granted to Smt. Nauni Dulaiya wife of Mardan Singh on 13-11-1960 for an area 6.25 acres and after her death Jahar Singh and Jaswant Singh alias Badan Singh have been substituted as her heirs and legal representatives; that in this case also the show-cause notice was issued by the Ahalmad to the Additional Collector, Lalitpur; that the aforesaid lease has been cancelled by the learned trial Court on the ground of being a resident of outside the circle; that as has already been stated above, the village Mudiya is a viran mauza and Mahrauni is the town-area and people of the village Mahrauni cultivate the land of the village Mudiya; that in view of the category (d) of Section 198 (1) of the Act, in 1960 any person could be granted the lease; that in the instant case, there is nothing on the record to show that any other person of the circle was desirous of taking the lease in question and was present in the meeting at the time of the grant of the aforesaid lease; that there is no any positive evidence to prove that these leases were granted in favour of the lease-holders at the cost of other landless agricultural labourers; that in the instant cases, the leases have been cancelled by the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur and in view of the case law reported on 1996 RD 190 (DB, HC), the Additional Collector has no jurisdiction to cancel the leases and as such these revisions be allowed and the orders passed by the learned Courts below be set aside. In reply the learned DGC (R) urged that the aforesaid revision petitions should be decided in view of the aforesaid case law referred to by the learned Counsel for the revisionist.
(3.) I have thoroughly and closely examined the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionists as well as the learned DGC (R) and also the relevant records on file. On a close scrutiny of the records, I find that the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist have much force. The relevant records clearly reveals that both the leases have been granted in favour of the revisionists on 13-11-1960 and in 1960, as per the provisions existing at the time of grant of the leases even a person living outside the circle could be allotted the lease under clause (d), Section 198 (1) of the Act. It is also crystal clear that in both the cases the Ahalmad to the Additional Collector, Lalitpur has issued the show cause notices to the revisionists and the leases granted in favour of the revisionists have been cancelled by the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur and as such these proceedings in the instant cases have been rendered vitiated ab initio in law. Moreover, as per the dictum of law as enunciated in the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court (Division Bench), Allahabad, reported in 1996 RD 190, the Additional Collector has no jurisdiction to cancel the leases and his aforesaid orders dated 30-3-1991 are totally without jurisdiction illegal and void. In these circumstances, I entirely agree with the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist as to the jurisdiction of the Additional Collector in respect of the instant cases.;