S.R.YADAV, j. - (1.) THIS is a revision preferred against the order dated 2-9-96 passed by the Additional Commis­sioner, Faizabad Division arising out of proceedings under Section 198 (4) of UPZA and LR Act, heard and decided by the Collector, Barabanki, vide the order dated 20-5-95.
(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the revisionist and perused the relevant papers on file as nobody appeared on be­half of state or Gaon Sabha as such the revision is heard and decided ex pane against the State and Gaon Sabha. The learned Counsel for the revisionist mainly submitted that the Pradhan's son being major was not re­quired to obtain any permission from the Collector as prescribed under Section 28-C of Panchayat Raj Act; hence the orders passed by the Courts below were unjus­tified and be quashed. In this regard he has referred a case law reported in 82 RD 218.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and going through the relevant papers on file I find that on the basis of revenue officials report, Collector, Barabanki proceeded under Section 198 (4) of UPZA and LR Act in respect of the lease granted for Khata No. 442 situate at village Khairabiru Pergana and Tahsil Haidergarh, district Barabanki in suo motu ; show-cause notices were issued to the lease- holders and they were given opportunity to file objections in respect of the reports submitted for cancellation of the leases in question. The leases in ques­tion stood cancelled vide the trial Court's order dated 20-5-95. Against which the said revision was preferred before Com­missioner, Faizabad Division, wherein the impugned order has been passed by the Additional Commissioner, where by the order of the Collector dated 20-5-95 has been affirmed which is under challenged before the Board of Revenue at Allahabad.;