S.P.PANDEY, j. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition preferred against the order dated 29-11-1994 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Divisions, Jhansi arising out of an order dated 30-4-1994 passed by the learned trial Court in the proceedings initiated under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that these suo moto proceedings for cancellation of the lease under Section 198 (4) of the Act were initiated on the tehsil report in respect of the lease granted in favour of the revisionist. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite formalities found the allotment irregular and cancelled the same on 30-4-1994. Aggrieved by this order, a revision petition was preferred by the revisionist. The learned Additional Commissioner has upheld the aforesaid order and dismissed the revision petition on 29-11-1994. Hence, this second revision petition. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and have also perused the record on file. None appeared on behalf of the opposite party, State of U.P. For the revisionist it was submitted that the Additional Collector, Lalitpur has cancelled the aforesaid lease on 30-4-1994 while had no authority in law to enquire into and adjudicate upon the matter in question in view of the case law reported in 1996 RD 190 (DB.HC). It was further urged that the Additional Collector, Lalitpur has also ordered the case to be registered and the notice to be issued to the revisionist, Bhupat under his seal and signatures; that in these circumstances the proceedings of this case has been rendered visited ad initio and as such the orders passed by the learned Courts below are without jurisdiction and void and are liable to be set aside.
(3.) I have closely and carefully examined the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the relevant records on file. A bare perusal of the relevant records reveals that the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the the revisionist have much force and I have no reason to disagree with him. On a close examination of the record, it is amply clear that the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur has passed an order dated 30-10-1993 as per which the case has been ordered to be registered and notice to be issued to the revisionist. Apart from this the learned Additional Collector has also issued the show cause notice to the revisionist, Bhupat under this seal and signature and finally he has rendered the order dated 30-4-1994 as per which the aforesaid lease granted in favour of the revisionist has been cancelled. As per the dictum of law enunciated by the Hon'ble High Court (DB), Allahabad in the decision reported in 1996 RD 190, the aforesaid order dated 30-4- 1994 rendered by the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur is totally void and without jurisdiction and as such the aforesaid order passed by the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur is liable to be set aside on the point of jurisdiction.;