K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition arises out of proceedings for cancellation of lease in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not plant requisite number of trees over the disputed land and the disputed land was not let out to the petitioner in accordance with law.
(2.) IT appears that an application was moved by one Sohan Lai making complaint against the petitioner. The Sub-Divisional Officer had taken action against the petitioner and cancelled the lease under the provisions of Sec. 198 (2) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (See Annexure "A-1" attached with the writ petition). Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was also dismissed by the appellate court through its judgment dated 18-8-1970. Thereafter the petitioner preferred a revision petition which has also been dismissed by the revisional court through its order dated 31-7-1974. Aggrieved by the judgments of the revenue courts the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the lease was granted to the petitioner in accordance with Para 58 of the Gaon Sabha Manual, hence the revenue courts had no jurisdiction to cancel the lease in favour of the petitioner under Section 198 (2) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. In this connection it has been contended that the lease in favour of the petitioner was not granted under the provisions of Section 195 or 197 of the UP ZA & LR Act, hence the provisions of Section 198 were not at all attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It has also been contended that the violation of Rule 173 onwards was also not involved in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the lease in favour of the petitioner was, granted under Para 58 of the Gaon Sabha Manual. Second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner ' is that on the complaint against the petitioner, the petitioner was liable to ejectment and proceedings should have been taken under Section 202 of the UP ZA & LR Act and in proceedings for cancellation of lease the authorities have wrongly ordered for ejectment of the petitioner.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha has submitted in reply that the lease was granted to the petitioner under the relevant sections of the UP ZA & LR Act. According to him the right conferred upon the petitioner was that of an Asami, hence the lease was under the provisions of Section 195 of the UP ZA & LR Act and the provisions of Para 58 of the Gaon Sabha Manual are only directions issued by the Government for carrying out the purposes of the Act, hence it is not correct to contend that the lease was granted under para 58 of the Gaon Sabha Manual and that it could not be cancelled under the provisions of Section 198 of the UP ZA & LR Act. Secondly, he has submitted that both the remedies are open against the petitioner. A suit could also be filed under Section 202 of the UP ZA and LR Act, and when the lease granted in favour of the petitioner was not in accordance with law, proceedings could be taken under section 198 (2) of the UP ZA & LR Act and the petitioner could be ejected under the provisions of Section 198 (3) of the UP ZA & LR Act. The learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha has tried to support the judgments of the revenue courts.;