K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition arises out of petitioner's suit under section 198 (4) read with section 229-B of the UP ZA and LR Act. The lease in favour of the petitioner was cancelled through the order dated 16-11-71 contained in Annexure 'A' attached with the writ petition. In the suit the petitioner had challenged the cancellation of lease in his favour and had prayed for declaration of his right in the disputed land.
(2.) THE trial court through its order dated 19-9-1972 granted decree in favour of the petitioner. State of U. P. aggrieved by the order of the trial court preferred an appeal and the appeal was allowed by the Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi through his judgment dated 2-12-1974 as is evident from Annexure A-2 attached with the writ petition. THEreafter the petitioner preferred a revision petition which has been dismissed by the revisional court through its order dated 30-6-1977. Against the judgment of the revisional court 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 in his favour was quite in accordance with law then prevailing and the appellate court and the revisional court have patently erred in maintaining the cancellation of lease which was granted in favour of the petitioner. My attention was drawn to the provisions of section 198 of the UP ZA and LR Act which stood at relevant time as below :- " In admitting any person as sirdar or asami under section 195 or 197, the Gaon Sabha shall subject to the rules framed or order made by the court under section 178 observe the following order of preference- (a) a co-operative farm established under this Act, holding land within the jurisdiction of the Gaon Sabha, to enable it to possess a suitable area, (b) a bhumidhar to whom sub-section (2) of section 18 or section 137 applies and who is holding land less than six and a quarter acres in area in the circle, (c) a tenure-holder other than the bhumidhars to whom clause (b) applies holding land less than six and a quarter acres in area in the circle, (d) a landless labourer residing in the circle, and (e) any other person ; Provided......... Provided.........
(3.) THE main grievence of the learned counsel for the petitioner before me is that the petitioner's case is covered by clause (e) of section 198 of the Act and the appellate court and the revisional court have patently erred in not recognising the claim of the petitioner. During the course of arguments I observed that CI. (e) of section 198 of the Act would be construed as if any other person living in the circle where the disputed land was situate. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the words of clause (e) of section 198 are so clear that the indication made by me would not be justified in the circumstances of the case. He has cited a large number of rulings such as Raja Bhanu Pratap Singh v. The Assistant Custodian E. P. Bahraich, AIR 1966 SC 245, Union of India v. Sankal Chand Mimat Lal Sheth, AIR 1977 SC 2328 and Om Prakash Gupta v. Dig Vijendrapal Gupta, AIR 1982 SC 1230 and has emphasised that harmonious constructions should be done and no word should be added to clause (e) of section 198 of the UP ZA and LR Act because the words are very clear and the indication made by me that clause (e) would be construed as any person residing in the circle should not be laid down. In Ram Pal Singh v. Board of Revenue, U. P. Allahabad, 1981 RD 333 construing the provisions of section 198 (d) of the UP ZA and LR Act (amended provisions) I have already held that the landless agricultural labourer should be resident of the circle.;