- (1.) S. R. Yadav, Member This is a revision against the order dated 23-12-95 passed by the learned Additional Com missioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakh-pur, arising out of the proceedings under Section 198 (4) of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act, Decided by the learned Additional Collec tor, Mau, vide the order dated 30-3-2001.
(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant papers on file. The learned Counsel for the revisionist mainly submitted that the ap plication of Vindhyachal being defective as the LMC was not made party should be rejected ; that in the instant case the show cause notices have also not been issued and that the complainant was not an ag grieved person. In reply, it is submitted that the lease in question is fictitious and the land was not vacant and that the orders passed by the learned Courts below are just and proper. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties it appears that the lease for agricultural purposes was executed in respect of plots No. 369/370 and 467/423 situate in village Hakikatpur, pergana and Tahsil Maunath Bhanjan, District Mau ; the tahsil report was obtained. One Vindhyachal moved an application for cancellation of the leases with the allega tion that the same were granted in favour of a member of the LMC without obtain ing the required permission. The learned trial Court after taking evidence con cluded that the application has force and hence the lease were cancelled on 30-3-91. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order a revision was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner Gorakhpur Division, also dismissed the revision by the order dated 23-12-95. Aggrieved by the above said or ders the parties have come up before the Board.
(3.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that the LMC has not been imp leaded as party as such, the application being defective should have been dismissed. It is the LMC which supervisor and maintains the Gaon Sabha land ; hence it is mandatory for any proceeding that the LMC should be ar-rprayed as party in such proceeding ; ap parently this has not been done in the matter. It is also clear that before cancell ing the lease in question the lease-holders have not been issued even show cause notices which is against the principle of natural justice as well as against the provisions Laid down for the same. In the said circumstances I find that while making the enquiry in the trial Court apparent illegality has been committed in the same, has neither been discussed nor any finding has been recorded by the learned Additional Commissioner in the order dated 23-12-95. Though it appears from the order, the points were raised before the learned Additional Commis sioner also ; hence I am unable to uphold the orders passed by the learned Courts below. However, the cancellation of the leases involve the validity or invalidity and regularity or irregularity committed in the grant of the same or not. Hence, the same should be scrutinised after imp leading the LMC as party and issuing the show cause notices to the parties laces-holders.;