S.P.PANDEY, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of UPZA and LR Act (here in after ivierred to as the Act), preferred against the judgment and order dated 1-3-1996, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, in revision petition No. 18 of 1995-96, dis­missing the same and concurring vith the finding, recorded by the learned trial Court, in the proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the inslant revision petition are that on the complaint moved by the revisionist, Jas Ram, proceeding under Section 198(4) of the Act for cancellation of the lease, granted in favour of the opposite party, Bhoja, were initiated and notice to show cause, was issued to him. During the pen­dency of these proceedings, an objection as to the proceedings being time barred was raised by Ihe opposite party, Bhoja. The learned trial Court, after hearing the par­ties concerned, came to the conclusioji that the notice given under Section 198(5) of the Act to the opposite party was illegal and uncalled for and withdrew thesame on 16-11-1992. Aggrieved by this order, a revision was preferred by'the revisionist. The learned Additional Commissioner by his order dated 1-3-1996, dismissed the revision petition. It is against this order that the instant revision petition has been filed before the Board. 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 orders passed by the learned Courts below are erroneous and bad in law as the lease granted in favour of the opposite party, in year 1975, was ir­regular and without following the proper plaintant prescribed by law; that the complain is are in possession of the land in dispate to since 30-6-1975 and have matured their rights under Section 122-B(4-F) of the Act, that the learned Courts below have crred in nol deciding the case on merits and in withdrawing the notice is­sued under Section 198(5) of the Act; that in any view of the mailer, the orders, passed by the learned Courts are arbitrary I and mala fide and, therefore, cannot be allowed to sustain. In reply, the learned Counsel for the opposite party urged that the concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below in respect of the com­plaint being time-barred, cannot be dis­turbed at this second revisional stage as iiu'v have clearly and categorically held that these proceedings were not initiated mo mow but on Ihe complaint of the revisionist and, therefore, the learned Ad­ditional Commissioner was perfectly justified in concurring with the finding recorded by the learned trial Court and as such this revision petition has no force and is liable to bedismhssed 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 the crux of the mailer is whet her or nol the notice issued under Section 198(5) of the Act to the opposite party the learned trial Court was time-barred. Both the Courts below have given a concurrent finding to the effect that since the proceedings were initiated on the complaint of the revisionist, Jas Ram, the notice issued under Section 198(5) of the Act was time-barred and withdrew the same. Section 198(6) of the Act reads as under: (6) Every notice to show-cause men­tioned in sub-section (5) may be issued- (a) In the case of an allotment of land made before November 10, 1980 (here in after referred to as the said date), before the expiry of a period of seven years from the said date: and (b) In the case of an allotment of land made on or after the said date, before the expiry of a period of five years from the date of sudi allotment or lease of upio November 10, 1987, whichever be later." A perusal of the above provisions and (he relevant records, of file makes it amply clear that the lease, in question was granted to the opposite-party, Bhoja in the year 1975 and Jas Ram, revisionist moved "the complaint on 12-12-1989. The same day, a report was called for from the Tehsil, concerned and on the report of the Tehsil concerned, orders, in respect of the case to be registered and notice 10 be issued were passed by the learned trial Court on 12-4-1990. As per the aforesaid provisions under Section 198(6) of the Act, notice could be issued uplo November 10, 1987 and the learned Courts below were per­fectly justified in discharging the notice issued to the opposite parly, Bhoja being time-barred. I do not agree with the con­tentions, raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist, who has miserably failed to substaniiaie his claim. The issue of limita­tion is a question of law which cuts the very root of the case. The aforesaid provision under Section 198(6) is mandatory in law and I entirely agree with the concurrent finding recorded by both the Couris below in this respect. I am, therefore, of the opinion that this revision petition has no forceand is liable to bedismissed.;