S.P.PANDEY,J. - (1.) THESE are six connected revision petitions under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), preferred against the judgment and order dated 6-7-2001 passed by the learned Collector, Lalitpur, in proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act, holding the same as not barred by the period of limitation.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the instant revision petitioner that on the tehsil report the learned Collector, concerned, vide his order dated 15-3-2001, ordered the case under Section 198(4) of the Act to be registered on the basis of suo moto action and the show-cause notices to be issued to the allottees, concerned on the ground of irregular allotments. On notice, objections were filled by the allottees, concerned in respect of the proceedings being barred by limitation, praying for the decision of the same as a preliminary point. The learned Collector, Lalitpur, vide his order dated 6-7-2001, ordered that the proceedings in question are not barred by limitation and therefore, it is against these orders that the instant revision petitions have been filed by the allottees, concerned before the Board. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned DGC (R) and have also perused the record on file. Assailing the impugned orders, the learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that the leases in question were granted on 26-7-1990, in revision petition Nos. 118 to 120 and 29-12-1988 in revision petition Nos. 121 to 123 and therefore, the show-cause notices could have been issued within five years from the date of allotment as per Section 198(6) (b) of the Act and as such,the same issued on 15-3-2001 to the allottees by the learned Collector concerned is clearly barred by limitation; that since no notice was issued to the revisionists prior to take suo moto action by the learned trial Court nor has it recorded any reason whatsoever,as to why it was satisfied to take such an action, the suo moto action was not at all justified in the facts and circumstances of the instant cases; that since the point of limitation is a question of law which cuts the very root of the case and the provisions of Section 198(6) (b) of the Act are mandatory in law, no notice could be issued after the expiry of the period of limitation i.e. after five years from the date of allotment; that in any view of the matter, the impugned orders are illegal, perverse, bad in law and without jurisdiction, which cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be allowed to sustain and these revision petitions very richly deserve to be allowed in toto. In support, reliance has been placed on the case laws reported in 1986 RD 137, 2000 RD (Suppl.) 77, 2001 RD 476. The learned DGC (R), in reply, urged that in view of the various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad as well as the Board of Revenue U.P. on the point at issue, appropriate orders may be passed in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as well as the evidence on record.
(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the arguments, advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the revisionists as well as the learned DGC (R) and have also scanned the record on file. As a matter of fact, no notice whatsoever has been issued to the revisionists by the learned Collector concerned prior to the initiation of the proceedings suo moto nor has he, in any way, recorded any reasons as to why he was satisfied to take such an action. The law is rather very clear on the subject as per the case law, reported in 1986 RD 137 and therefore, the suo moto action wa not at all justified in the facts and circumstances of the instant cases as will as the evidence on record. It is also true that the leases in respect of revision petition Nos. 118 to 120 were granted to the allottees concerned on 26-7-1990 while the same in respect of the revision petition Nos. 121 to 123 were granted on 29-12-1988. In any case, the allotments in question, were made after November 10, 1980 and therefore, provisions of Section 198(6) (b) of the Act would squarely apply to the instant cases. The show-cause notices, in the instant cases, as per the aforesaid provisions of law, could be issued within five years from the date of such allotment while the same has been issued to the allottees concerned in the year 2001. In the circumstances such a notice is clearly barred by limitation. There cannot be any two opinions in this respect and therefore, I am of the considered opinion that since the question of limitation is a point of law which cuts the very root of the case, the impugned orders cannot be allowed to sustain and these revision petitions very richly deserve to be allowed in toto.;