S.P.PANDEY, j. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act (here in after referred to as the Act) against the judg­ment and order dated ] 6-8-1971 passed by the learned S.D.O., Lalitpur in case No. 406 under Section 198 (2) of the Act.
(2.) ; Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that suo motu proceedings for cancellation of the lease, granted in favour of the revisionist under Section 198 (2) of the Act, were initiated on the ground of irregular allotment. The learned SDO, Lalitpur, after completing the requisite formalities, cancelled the aforesaid lease, as the lessee is father-in-law of Ram Dayal, one of the members of the LMC. Hence this revision petition. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record on file. For the revisionist, it was contended that on 16-8-1971, when the then SDO, Lalitpur passed the order, can­celling the aforesaid lease, granted in favour of the revisionist, the Collector alone had the jurisdiction to cancel the allotment and lease and the SDO had no such jurisdiction to cancel the same; that as per Act XXXV of 1970, the Collector alone was empowered to cancel the lease and as such, the aforesaid order, passed by the then learned SDO, Lalitpur is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, he has referred to the case law, reported in 1982 AWC836 (H.C.). The learned DGC (R), appearing for the State of U.P., submitted that the impugned order is without jurisdiction in view of the aforesaid U.P. Act XXXV of 1970.
(3.) I have carefully and closely con­sidered the submissions made before me by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant records, on file. From a cross-examination of the record, it is crystal clear that the then SDO Lalitpur, by means of his order dated 16-8-1971, has cancelled the aforesaid lease whereas as per U.P. Act XXXV of 1970, which was published in the U.P. Gazette dated December 29, 1970, the Collector alone had the jurisdiction to cancel the allotment and the lease. The SDO had no such jurisdiction. It, there-fore, follows that the aforesaid impugned order dated 16-8-1971, passed by the "then learned SDO Lalitpur, is without jurisdic­tion, unsustainable, wholly unwarranted in law and void and as such. I need not to enter into the merits of the case.;