S.P.PANDEY, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to the Act), preferred against the judgment and order, dated 21-1-1994, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in revision Petition No. 206/300 of 1991-92/Banda, dismissing the same and confirming the judgment and order, dated 19-8-1992, passed by the learned trial Court in proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that on the application of Shiv Nathi, proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act were initiated against the present revisionist etc., for cancellation of the lease, granted in their favour, on the ground of irregular allotment, during the pendency of which an application was moved on behalf of the revisionist on 12-2-1992 with the prayer to decide the preliminary issues first, in respect of the point of res-judicata and the proceedings, being barred by limitation. Objections were filed by the complainant on 25-5-1992, praying for the rejection of the aforesaid application. The learned trial Court, vide its order, dated 10-8-1992, rejected the application, in question, and ordered the case to proceed further, against which a revision petition was preferred by the revisionist before the learned Additional Commissioner, who has dismissed the same vide his judgment and order, dated 21-1-1994 and therefore, it is against these orders that the instant revision petition has been filed by her before the Board. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and have also perused the record on file. None respondend for the opposity party, despite due notice and repeated calls at the time of hearing. Assailing the impugned orders, the learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that since the proceedings, in question, are barred by limitation as well as by the principle of res-judicata, the same are not maintainable in law as the lease was granted in the year 1964 and the complaint was lodged in 1991; that since the point of limitation would always be decided as preliminary issue in view of the fact that it cuts the very root of the case, the learned Courts below have grossly erred in holding otherwise and ordering the case to proceed further; that since the provisions of Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act does not apply to the proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act, the same are barred by limitation; that since earlier on 3-1-1981, the learned Additional Commissioner, Banda had confirmed the allotment, made in favour of the revisionist and had dropped the proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act, the principle of res-judicata would certainly come into play and therefore, the impugned orders are contrary to law on the subject; that in any view of the matter, the impugned orders are illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction, which cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be allowed to sustain and therefore, this revision petition very richly deserves to be allowed. In support, reliance has been placed on the case laws, reported in 1992 RD 51, 1991 RJ 205, 1983 RD 107.
(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the arguments, advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and have also scanned the record on file. A bare perusal of the record on file clearly reveals that both the learned Courts below, have rejected the application, dated 12-2-1992, moved on behalf of the revisionist on the ground that the principle of res-judicata and the point of limitation do not bar the instant proceedings. As a matter of fact, the legality and veracity of the lease, in question, have never been adjudicated upon earlier. What was, in fact, done is that since the land comes under Section 132 of the Act, amendment was ordered to be made accordingly. So far as the point of limitation is concerned, although the complaint was made in the year 1991, but after enquiry, if the collector, concerned is satisfied to proceed with the case, it would always be deemed that he has tken the action suo-moto, and in such a case, the complaint is nothing but a source of information to him and therefore, the question of limitation does not arise at all. Both the learned Courts below have dealt with the matter, in question, through and through, in correct perspective of law and were perfectly, justified in rendering the impugned orders. Moreover, the final decision in the matter, in question is yet to be given and the revisionist has nothing to worry about or to feel aggrieved or prejudiced, as she will certainly have ample opportunity to have her say before the learned trial Court, if she so desires and therefore, the contentions of the learned Counsel for the revisionist who has miserably failed to substantiate his claim, are rather untenable for the same reason. The case laws, cited by him, are also of no help to the revisionist for the simple reason that the facts of the instant case are rather quite different from those of the reported case and therefore, I am of the considered opinion that no error of law, fact or jurisdiction has been committed by the learned Courts, below and as such, this revision petition, having no force, very richly deserves dismissal outright. Needless to say, since this is one of the oldest pending cases, the learned trial Court is, at least, expected to dispose of the same expeditiously, on merits.;