S.P.PANDEY, j. - (1.) THESE are four revision petitions preferred against the judgment dated 17-5-2000 passed by the learned trial Court separately in proceedings initiated against the revisionist under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act (here in after in short referred to as the Act). Since the facts and controversy involved in these revision petitions are similar, these revision peti­tions are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The revision petition No. 48 of 1999- 2000/Lalitpur shall be the leading case.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that on tehsil report, the proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act for the cancellation of the leases granted in favour of the opposite parties were initiated by the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur who after completing the requisite for­malities cancelled the aforesaid leases on 17-5-2000. Aggrieved by this order these revision petitions have been preferred before the Board. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and have also perused the record on file. None appeared on be­half of the State of U.P. despite due notice. For the revisionist it was contended that the revisionists, Moti Lal was granted a lease on 4-8-1991, Lakkhu on 11-6-1993, Babu on 11-6-1993 and Kripal on 15-7-1992 while the show cause notices were issued by the learned Additional Collec­tor, Lalitpur on 21-1-1999, 21-1-1999, 2-11-1998 and 21-1-1999, respectively and the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur has cancelled the aforesaid leases granted in favour of the revisionists ; that the aforesaid show cause notices have been issued to the revisionists after five years from the date of the allotment made in their favour and as such the instant proceedings are clearly time barred in view of the provisions as contained under Sec-lion 198 (6)(ii) of the Act and the U.P. Act No. XXIV of 1986 dated 4-12-1986 ; that the Hon'ble High Court has also con­firmed the aforesaid provisions in the decision reported in 1993 RD 233 ; that in these circumstances the learned Addition­al Collector, Lalitpur had ceased to have any powers to invoke the instant proceed­ings against the revisionists and as such the impugned orders passed by the learned trial Court being void and without jurisdic­tion is liable to be set aside and the leases granted in favour of the revisionists are liable to be maintained as before. Further it was urged that in view of the case law reported in 1996 RD 190 (DB.HC) the aforesaid orders passed by the learned trial Court are liable to be set aside as being void and without jurisdiction.
(3.) I have closely and carefully ex­amined the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the relevant records on file. On a close scrutiny of the relevant records it is crystal clear that the notices issued by the learned Addi­tional Collector, Lalitpur to the revisionist are clearly time barred as the Section 1986) of the Act provides that- "(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 or after the said date, before the expiry of a period of five years from the date of such allotment or lease or upto November 10, 1987, whichever be later." From a bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, I find much force in the conten­tion raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist. The learned trial Court should have looked into the matter in question and initiate the instant proceedings if the matter in question was with in time for initiating the instant proceedings. Con­sidering the entire facts and circumstances of the instant case, I find that these proceedings have not been initiated by the learned trial Court in consonance with the relevant provisions of law. In fact the in­stant proceedings for cancellation of the leases granted in favour of the revisionists should have been initiated with in five years from the date of the execution of the "leases and as such the learned trial Court has cease to have any powers to initiate the instant proceedings against the revisionists in view of the aforesaid provisions of the Act and U.P. Act No. XXIVof 1986 dated 4-12-1986.;