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 2-9-1983, passed by the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur in case No. 136 under Section 198(4) of the Act, cancelling the lease in question.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts, giving rise to the instant revision petition are that on the basis of the tehsil report, suo moto proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act were initiated against the revisionist for the cancellation of the lease, granted in his favour, on the ground of irregular allotment. On notice, the revisionist did not appear as the same was not served upon him personally. The learned trial Court, vide its order, dated 2-9-1983, cancellled the lease in question and vested the land in dispute in the Gaon Sabha, concerned and therefore, it is against his order that the instant revision petition has been preferred by the revisionist before the Board. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record on file. Assailing the impugned order, the bone of contentions of the learned Counsel for the revisionist inter alia, in a nut shell, are firstly, that since the show cause notice was issued to the revisionist on 13-9-1982, under the signatures of the ARA/Peskhar to the Addl. Collector, concerned, the entire proceedings are void ad initio as it is the Collector who has authority to issue the same under his own signatures; secondly, that since the lease in question, was granted to the revisionist in the year 1973 and the limitation for issuance of fresh show cause notice has since been expired in November, 1987, there is no option except to quash the proceedings; thirdly, that once a revision is admitted by the Board, it must be decided finally by itself as per the settled principle of law and therefore, 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 2003 RD 2(H), 2004 RD 422, 2002 RD 112(H), 1979 RD 89, 2000 RD 607 and 46. He has also filed a photocopy of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the Board, in Revision petition No. 6 of 1997-98/Lalitpur. The learned Counsel for the opposite party, in reply, urged that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as well as the evidence, on record, the learned trial Court was perfectly justified in cancelling the lease in question granted to the revisionist with which no interference is called for by this Court in this revision petition which is not maintainable, in law and therefore, this revision petition very richly deserves dismissal out right.
(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the arguments, advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also scanned the record on file. As a matter of fact, the show cause notice was issued to the revisionist under the signatures of the peshkar/ARA to the Additional Collector, Concerned, which clearly renders the entire proceedings void ab initio, in view of the provisions of Section 198 (4) of the Act, providing for issuance of such notice under the signatures of the Collector, concerned. It is also evident from a bare perusal of the provisions of Section 198(6) of the Act that such a notice cannot now be issued as the limitation for the same has since been expired in November, 1987, in view of the fact that the lease, in question, was granted to the revisionist in the year 1973, As a matter of fact, as per the existing settled principle of law enunciated in the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, in writ petition No. 38525 of 1996, the subsequent lessees cannot claim any right against the earlier allottee. So far as the maintainability of this revision petition is concerned, the same is, no doubt, maintainable, as there is concurrent jurisdiction of the Commissioner and the Board, as a result of which a second revision is strictly prohibited, in law, in view of the provisions of the U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1997 and therefore, as per the case law, cited, a revision once admitted by the Board, has to be decided finally by itself. The view of the learned trial Court that the revisionist is not a resident of the village, concerned nor was he willing to contest the proceedings, is also without any basis, as the so called show cause notice was not served upon him personally. It was merely reported that he had gone out of the village which does not in any way indicate that he is not a resident of the same. As already stated above, since the entire proceeding are void ab initio, the impugned order cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be allowed to sustain in law.;