- (1.) THIS reference has been made by the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi by this order dated 14-8-96 passed in Revision No. 19 of 1994-95 against the order of Additional Collector, Lalitpur dated 13-7-1995 passed in Suit No. 213 of 1993-94 under Section 198 (4) of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act.
(2.) FROM the record of the case it is clear that the Revisionist Bhuvan was allotted Patta of Plot No. 1354/2 area 4. 99 acres and Plot No. 1354/1408 area 1. 03 acres in the year 1966 on the resolution of L. M. C. Gijiyavan. A report regarding cancellation of Patta was submitted by the Tahsidar Lalitpur on 2 counts, Ist that the allottee was not resident of the Gaon Sabha, IInd that at the time of the allotment his father was having 24. 38 acres land in his name. Learned Additional Collector by his order dated 13-7- 95 cancelled the Patta and vested the said land in the Gaon Sabha concerned. Against this order of cancellation of Patta the allottee preferred the revision before the Commissioner, Jhansi Division Jhansi, which was allowed by the impugned order and reference was made to the Board of Revenue for setting aside the order passed by the Additional Collector, Lalitpur and for issuing direction to the Collector, Lalitpur to consider the case and pass the order himself. The learned Commissioner has observed in his order that the Additional Collector, Lalitpur was not competent to take suo moto action recarding the cancellation of Patta and secondly the notice was not issued to L. M. C. Gijiyavan rather the notice was issued to L. M. C. Mirchwara which was not concerned at all with the said allotment. It is not disputed that the said allotment was made in the year 1966 whereas auction for cancellation of Patta was initiated on 4-11-87, after lapse of almost 21 years. Section 198 (6) (a) provides that show cause notice for cancellation of Patta in case of allotment of land made before November 10, 1980, may be issued before the expiry of a period of 7 years. The trial Court does not appear to have taken this into consideration. Secondly the future share of any person in the holding of his father and mother as the case may be does not constitute a Bar for allotment, if he is otherwise eligible for allotment. Suo-moto action can be taken by the Collector himself and not by the Additional Collector. On these observations and the recommendation made by the learned Commissioner, the reference is accepted, the order of the learned Additional Collector Lalitpur is set aside and the case is remanded to Collector, Lalitpur to consider the same and to pass appropriate order after giving full opportunity of being heard to allottee. Reference accepted. .;