S.P.PANDEY, j. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA & LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) preferred against the judgment and order, dated 21-5-2003 passed by the learned Collector, Lalitpur, in case No. 250 of 2001-02/Lalitpur State v. Sardar Singh, under Section 198(4) of the Act, cancelling the lease, in question, granted in favour of the revisionist, Sardar Singh and ordering the land, in dispute, to vest in the Gaon Sabha concerned.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts, giving rise to the instant revision petition are that on the application of Nirpat Singh, a report was called for from the tehsil, concerned and upon the same, proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act for cancellation of the lease, in question, granted in favour of the revisionist were initiated against him, on the ground of irregular allotment. On notice, the revisionist, Sardar Singh contested the proceedings, inter-alia pleading that since he was an eligible person for such allotment and the lease, in question, was validly granted to him, the notice issued to him, is liable to be discharged. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite formalities, cancelled the lease in question, ordering the land in dispute, to vest in the Gaon Sabha, concerned, vide its order, dated 21-5-2003 and therefore, it is against this order that the instant revision petition has been preferred by the revisionist, Sardar Singh 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 order, the main thrust of contentions of the learned counsel for the revisionist is two fold-firstly, that the suo-moto action is not justified in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and secondly, that the instant proceedings are highly time-barred. It was submitted by him that while the lease was granted to the revisionist on 24-10-1989, the show cause notice was issued to the revisionist on 13-8-2002, which cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be issued as per the provisions under Section 198 (6)(b) of the Act and that since no notice was issued to the revisionist, prior to the initiation of the suo-moto action nor was he afforded an opportunity of being heard before initiation of such action, the same is rather not justified in the eyes of law, as per the case-law, reported in 1986 RD 137 and therefore, since on both the counts, the aforesaid proceedings are vitiated in law, the impugned order cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be allowed to sustain and this revision petition very richly deserves to be allowed in toto. In support, reliance has been placed on the case-laws, reported in 1990 RD 70; 2003 ALR 265 (HC). The learned DGC(R), in reply, urged that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as well as evidence on record, the learned Court below was perfectly justified in rendering the impugned order and cancelling the lease in question and therefore, this revision petition, having no force, very richly deserves dismissal outright.
(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the arguments advanced before me by the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned DGC(R) and have also scanned the record on file. As a matter of fact, the lease, in question, was granted to the revisionist, in the year 1989, while the show-cause notice was issued to him in the year 2002. Suo-moto action was ordered by the learned Collector, concerned on 13-8-2002. It is also true that before initiating suo-moto action, no notice was issued to the revisionist, nor was he afforded any opportunity of being heard before the initiation of such an action. The learned Collector, concerned has also not indicated any reason as to why he was satisfied to initiate such an action in view of the case-law, reported in 1986 RD 137 and therefore, such an action is not at all justified in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as well as the settled principle of law. As indicated above, the allotment in question was made on 24-10-1989, while the show cause notice was issued to the revisionist on 13-8-2002, which was clearly barred by limitation as per the provisions of Section 198(6)(b) of the Act and therefore, on both the counts, the proceedings, in question, itself are vitiated in law and as such, I, without commenting upon the merits of the case, am of the considered opinion that the impugned order can not, at any stretch or imagination, be allowed to sustain in law.;