S.P.PANDEY, j. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) preferred against the judgment and order, dated 13-5- 1997 passed by the learned Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi in Revision No. 20 of 1996-97/Lalitpur, dismissing the same and confirming the judgment and order, dated 1-11-1996 passed by the learned trial Court on the restoration application in proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise the instant revision petition are that the learned trial Court cancelled the lease in question on 24-10-1979. A restoration Application was filed against the aforesaid order and the same was rejected by the learned trial Court on 1-11-1996. Thereafter, a revision was preferred before the learned Commissioner concerned and the same was dismissed on 13-5-1997. Hence, this second revision petition. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned DGC (R), appearing for the State of U.P. and have also perused the record on file. For the revisionist, it was contended that the lease in question was granted to Jhunni Lal, the father of the revisionist on 13-3-1966 and the learned Collector concerned cancelled the lease in question by his order, dated 24-10-1979, that the Reader to the Collector concerned issued a show cause notice under his own signature while has had no authority in law to do the same, that the show cause notice should have been issued by the Collector concerned under his own signature in view of the provisions contained in Section 198 (4) of the Act, that in the circumstances, the entire proceedings in the instant case have been rendered void ab-initio as held in the case law reported in 1987 RD 199 and 1987 RD 349. In this respect my attention was also drawn towards a decision dated 2-9- 1992 rendered the division Bench of this Court in a Review Petition No. 197 or 1983-84/Lalitpur- Ram Charan v. State of U.P. and Revision No. 100 of 1990-91/Lalitpur. Further, it was contended that the facts and circumstances of the instant case, this matter cannot be remanded back to the Court of the Collector concerned for decision afresh after issuing a show cause notice under his own signature as the same could be issued upto November 10, 1987 only. In this respect, my attention was invited towards a decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court reported in 1993 RD 233. It was further pressed before me that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, question does not arise for remanding the case to the learned trial Court, that as proceedings of the instant case have been rendered void ab-initio, the orders passed by the learned Courts below be quashed and the revision petition be allowed. The learned DGC (R), appearing for the State of U.P. urged that the matter may be decided as per the provisions of law.
(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also scanned the relevant records on file. A bare perusal of the record on file clearly reveals that the aforesaid show cause notice was issued by the Reader to the Collector concerned and not by the Collector himself as required by law. In the circumstances, this has rendered the entire proceedings vitiated ab-initio in law. I find much force in the contentions of the learned Counsel for the revisionist. On examination of the record on file, it is amply clear that now in the instant case, there arises no question to remand the case to the learned trial Court for decision afresh as the lease in question has been granted in the Year 1966 and as such the limitation for issuance of a show cause notice has already expired on November 10, 1987.;