K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been directed against the judgment of late Sri H. N. Agarwal, I. A. S., Member Board of Revenue dated 17-8-1977. It arises out of proceedings under section 198 (4) of the UP ZA and LR Act.
(2.) THE petitioners had approached the trial court with the allegations that the lease in their favour was wrongly set aside on 31-8-71 in a summary proceeding under section 198 (2) of the UP ZA and LR Act. Due to cancellation of the sale deed through the order dated 31-8-71 there is cloud on the title of the lessees hence the suit. The claim of the petitioners was contested with the allegations that there was no proper resolution for allotment of land nor proclamation and Munadi etc. were done in accordance with the Rules, hence the lease in favour of the petitioners was rightly cancelled. It was also alleged that the petitioners' father had sufficient land, hence the petitioners could not be termed as landless agricultural labourers. Therefore, the lease in their favour was rightly cancelled and the claim of the petitioners was rightly negatived. The trial court accepted the contention of the petitioner whereas the first appellate court negatived the claim of the petitioners and the same has been confirmed in revision petition. The first appellate court justified the cancellation of the lease in favour of the petitioners by the authority concerned in a summary proceeding under section 198 (2) of the UP ZA and LR Act on the ground that the leases were granted to the petitioners without following the mandatory provisions of Rules 173 and 174 of the UP ZA and LR Act as well as on the ground that the petitioner's father had sufficient land. Meaning thereby that the petitioners could not be termed as landless labourers, but in revision the learned Member has upheld the judgment of the first appellate court only on the ground that the petitioners' father has sufficient land, hence the petitioners could not be held as landless agricultural labourers. The relevant extract from the impugned judgment reads as below vide para 5 :- "......... It is further on record that neither a list of persons desirous of taking land on lease was prepared at the time of the grant of the lease nor the plots numbers to be let out were announced in the proclamation. While these irregularities may be ignored here as they have been not taken into account by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer. It is fully established that the allotment of land to the revisionists is in complete violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 198 (2) UP ZA and LR Act. It is not open to the Land Management Committee to allot land to persons whose fathers already have 26 acres of land when a large number of landless agricultural labourers exist in the village. "
(3.) AGAINST the judgment of the revisional court the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that the revisional court has failed to notice Explanation I added to section 198 of the UP ZA and LR Act relevant for the purposes of the present case. He has emphasised that the law prevailing in the year 1970 would govern the facts and circumstances of the present case as the lease was cancelled in the year 1971. None appears on behalf of the opposite parties.;