S.P.PANDEY, j. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA & LR Act (here in after referred to as the Act), preferred against the order dated 17-5-2000, passed by the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur, in the proceedings for cancellation of the lease, granted in favour of the revisionist under Section 198 (4) of the Act.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case, are that these proceedings for cancellation of the aforesaid lease were initiated upon the Tehsil report under Section 198 (4) of the Act on various grounds. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisile trial cancelled the aforesaid lease on 17-5-2000. Aggrieved by this order, this revision petition has been preferred. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned DGC (R), appearing Tor the Slate of U.P. and have also perused the reeord on file. For the revisionist, it was contended that the aforesaid impugned order, dated 17-5-2000, passed by the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur is totally void and without jurisdiction, as per the case law7, reported in 1996 RD 190 (DB.HC); that the allegation to the effect that the revisionist was in service in PWD Depart­ment at the time of the aforesaid allotment has not been proved by the opposite party; that Kamlesh was a different person; that the learned trial Court has wrongly shifted the burden on the revisionist to prove that he was not Kamlesh bill it is a settled principle of law that negative fact need not to be proved as held by the Hon'ble High Court, in a case law, reported in 1997 AWC 649; that the order of the learned trial Court is not based on evidence on record; that father's land shall not be tagged with the land of the revisionist, unless it proved that the revisionist was minor at the time of the allotment. In reply, the learned DGC (R) submitted that as per the aforesaid case laws, the matter should be decided.
(3.) I have closely and carefully ex­amined the contentions raised 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 record, it is amply clear that the show cause notice has been issued to the lease­holder (revisionist) under the signature of the then Additional Collector, Lalitpur. On 17-5-2000, the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur has cancelled the aforesaid lease, while he had no authority in law to enquire into and to adjudicate upon the matter in question. As per the dictum of law, enunciated by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, in a case law-reported in 1996 RD 190 (DB), the cancel­lation proceedings has been rendered void ab-initio and the aforesaid impugned order dated 17-5-2000 is totally void and without jurisdiction and as such, this order is liable to be set aside.;