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 10-3-2003, passed by the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur, in Case No. 320/95-96, 237/2002-03, State v. Kure, under Section 198(4) of the Act, cancelling the lease for an area of 1.59 acres only.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts, giving rise to the instant revision petition are that on the application, dated 22-2-1996, suo motu proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act were initiated against the allottee, Kure, for cancellation of the lease, granted in his favour on 25-8-1987, on the ground of irregular allotment. On notice, the allottee contested the proceedings, denying the allegations and inter alia, pleading that the allotment, in question, is regular and valid in all respect. The learned Additional Collector, concerned, after completing the requisite formalities, cancelled the lease, in question for an area of 1.59 acres only, out of its total area of 3.00 acres, vide his order, dated 10-3-2003 and therefore, it is against this order that the instant revision petition has been preferred by the heirs of the allottee, concerned before the Board. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionists and the learned DGC(R) 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 allottee, Kure was not a resident of Raghunathpura but of village Bamhori Nangal, which belongs to the Gaon Sabha Masaura Kalan, it is wrong to say that he is not a resident of the circle, secondly, that since the area of 3.22 acres of the land, held jointly by the leasee and his brother, came in their names after the grant of the lease, in question, in which the allottee, Kure had 1/2 share only, the total land held by him after the grant of the lease in question comes to 4.61 acres which is within the prescribed limit of 4.68 acres and as such, this cannot be taken as a ground for the cancellation of the same and the learned Court below, has grossly erred in doing so, thirdly, that since the lease, in question, was granted on 25-8-1987, while the cancellation proceedings were initiated in the year 1995-96, after five years from the date of the allotment, the proceedings are barred by limitation, in view of the provisions of Section 198(6)(b) of UP Act XXIV of 1986 and therefore, the impugned order, being illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be allowed to sustain and this revision petition very richly deserves to be allowed in toto. The learned DGC(R), in reply, urged that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as well as the evidence on record, the learned Court below, was perfectly justified in cancelling the lease for an area of 1.59 acres only out of its total area 3.00 acres and rendering the impugned order 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 revisionists 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 allottee, concerned on 25-8-1987, while the show-cause notice for initiating the proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act was issued to him on 27-5-1996. As per the provisions of Section 198(6)(b) of the Act as well as UP Act No. XXIV of 1986, the show-cause notice for initiating such proceedings could be issued to the allottee, concerned within five years from the date of such allotment and since the same was issued after a lapse of more than five years from such date, the entire proceedings are, no doubt, barred by limitation and therefore, since the proceedings are time-barred, I need not enter into the merits of the case and as such, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain, in law and this revision petition very richly deserves to be allowed.;