SIDDHARTHA VARMA,J. - (1.) The petitioners who are nine in number were allotted pattas vide lease documents dated 27.10.1992. The pattas were preceded by Munadi, resolution and approval as is provided in the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the Rules of 1952. When in the year 2003-04, one Hardas filed a complaint against the allotment of the pattas, notices were issued to the petitioners who replied to the show cause notices. Thereafter the pattas, were cancelled vide order dated 1.6.2011 and the Revision which the petitioners filed was also dismissed on 23.3.2012. Before the actual cancellation order was passed, the complaint as was filed by Hardas was dismissed in default. Hardas never filed any restoration application but a restoration application was filed by the District Government Counsel (D.G.C.) on behalf of the State. The case proceeded when the restoration application of the D.G.C. was allowed and the order of dismissal was recalled on 8.9.2005. The Additional Collector cancelled the pattas on 6.5.2006. The petitioners along with other pattedars filed a Revision which was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Additional Collector and ultimately on 1.6.2011 the Additional Collector again cancelled the pattas. The Revision which was filed was also dismissed by order dated 23.3.2012. Hence the instant writ petition.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners made the following submissions: (I) When the complaint of Hardas was dismissed in default on account of his non appearance on 22.2.2005 the District Government Counsel (D.G.C.) on behalf of the State of U.P. could not have filed the restoration application and thus the restoration order dated 8.9.2005 could not have been passed. (II) The petitioners have further submitted that when the allotments were made by the lease documents dated 27.10.1992, as per the provisions of Section 198 (6) an application for the cancellation of pattas could have been filed within 5 years only.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners to bolster his submissions placed before this Court the judgment reported in (2010) 2 ADJ 514, (Suresh Giri and others v. Board of Revenue) and submitted that the question of limitation is something which goes to the very root of the matter. He submitted, entertaining a case which was filed beyond limitation amounted to a jurisdictional error. The submissions of the petitioner are contained in paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 of the writ petition and so they are being reproduced here as under: "30. That the order dated 8.9.2005 passed by the respondent no.4, the Additional Collector (F/R), Gautam Budh Nagar allowing the restoration application filed by the D.G.C. (Revenue) in Case No. 14 of 2003-04, (Hardas and others v. Manoj and others) is manifestly illegal and without jurisdiction. Hence the same is liable to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court. 31. That the complaint under Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was filed by the complainants Hardas and others vide order dated 22.2.2005, the complaint filed by Hardas and others was dismissed in default and therefore, only the complainants Hardas and others alone had the right to file the recall. Consequently the recall/restoration application filed by the the D.G.C. (Revenue) was maintainable. 32. That even otherwise also, Section 198 (6) provides for the limitation for initiating the proceedings for cancellation of lease under Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. In the case of a private complainant or suo-motu exercise, the period of limitation within which such action can be taken is five years from the date of allotment. In the case in hand, the allotment was made in favour of the allottees including the petitioners on 4.7.91. Therefore, any proceedings in respect of cancellation of the allotment/lease could be taken only upto 4.7.96. Once the proceedings itself were time barred as they were filed in the year 2003-04, the restoration application filed in such a case was also maintainable.";