S.P.PANDEY, j. - (1.) THIS is a ref­erence, dated 10-9-1991, made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, with his recommenda­tion that the order dated 7-4-1985, passed by the learned trial Court be set aside and the case be remanded to the learned trial Court for decision afresh on merits in the light of the observations, made in the aforesaid order dated 10- 9- 1991 .
(2.) , Brief and relevant facts of the ease are that.wtomoto proceedings for cancella­tion of Ihe lease, granted in favour of the revisionist were initiated under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act (here in after referred to as the Act), on the ground that the grand-father of the revisionist had 9.76 acres of land before the aforesaid allotment. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite for­malities, found no irregularity in the ex­ecution of the aforesaid lease, in favour-of the revisionist and has maintained the aforesaid lease by means of its order, dated 7-4-1985. Aggrieved by this order, a revision petition was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner has made this reference, with his aforesaid recommendation. I have heard the learned DGC (R), appearing for the State of U.P. as well as the learned Counsel for the revisionist and have also perused the record, on file. For the revisionist, it was submitted that the reference be accepted and the revision petition be allowed. In reply, the learned Counsel for the opposite party urged that the aforesaid suo moto proceedings are wholly perverse and illegal which must be quashed. It was further submitted that the then Additional Collector, Lalitpur has passed the final order, dated 7-4-85 can­celling the aforesaid 1ease, granted in favour of the revision.From a bare perusal of the trial Cout's record, it is evidently clear that the hen Additional Collector, Lalitpur has or lercd the case to be registered and notice to be issued to the opposite party, vide his order, dated 7-8-1980. It was further urged that there is nothing on record to show that any show cause notice was issued to the opposite party, while it was mandatory upon the learned Collector, concerned to ensure service of the show-cause notice upon the opposite party, corcerned in whose favour the lease was granted, in view of the-provisions, contained under Section 198 (5) of the Act as such, the whole cancella­tion proceedings have been rendered void ab-initio and the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside being totally without jurisdiction and void. In support of his contentions, he has cited the case law, reported in 1996 RD 190(DB.HC).
(3.) I have carefully and closely ex­amined the submissions, made by the learned DGC (R) as well as the learned Counsel for the opposite party and the relevant records on file. On a close scrutiny of the record, it is manifestly clear that the then Additional Collector, Lalitpur was ordered the case to be registered and notice to be issued to the opposite party vide his order dated 7-8-1980. Moreover, under Section 198 (5) of the Act provides that "no order for cancellation of an allot­ment or lease shall be made under sub-sec­tion (4), unless a notice to show cause is served on the person in whose favour the allotment or lease was made or on his legal representatives:Provided that no such notice shall be necessary in proceedings for the cancellation of any allotment or lease where such proceedings were pend­ing before the Collector or any other Court or authority on August 18,1980. No such notice is available on the record to have been issued to the opposite party, as has been provided under the aforesaid Section 198 (5) of the Act. Further more it is also pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid order concerning registration of the case and issuance of the notice to the opposite party should have been ordered by the Collector concerned and not by the Additional Collec­tor. In addition to this, the aforesaid final order, dated 7-4-1985, has been passed by the learned Additional Collector, Lalit­pur, while he had no authority in law to enquire into and to adjudicate upon the matter, in question under Section 198 (4) of the Act, as per the dictum of law, enun­ciated by the Hon'blc High Court (DB) in the case law reported in 1996 RD190.;