K. N. Misra, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned orders passed by Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
(2.) BY these orders the lease, which was granted to the petitioners by the Land Management Committee on 26-8-79, has been cancelled. The order of cancellation of the lease passed by Respondent No. 3 has been confirmed by the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that during consolidation operations petitioners were allotted land as against the leased out land and as such the lease could not be cancelled by the Respondent No. 3. I am unable to agree with this contention. The consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to cancel alleged lease granted by the Land Management Committee of the Gaon Sabha. The lease in question could be cancelled only in proceedings under Section 198 (4) by the Respondent no. 3 as has bean held by this Court in Similesh Kumar v. Gaon Sabha, 1977 AWC 259. In that view of the matter I do not find any error of jurisdiction has been committed by the Respondent No. 3 in cancelling the lease of the petitioners.
(3.) LEARNED counsel next contended that as against the leased out land some other land has been allotted in the Chak of the petitioners and as such cancellation could not be done and the petitioners could not be dispossessed from the land allotted to them during consolidation operation as against the leased out land. I am unable to agree with this contention. Since the land is said to have been allotted during consolidation operations in lieu of leased out land and as such upon the cancellation of lease the petitioners would cease to hold any right, title and interest in the land allotted to them during consolidation operation and they cannot retain the land in their possession any more and have to vacate it as their leases have been cancelled by the Respondents 1 to 3.;