S.P.PANDEY, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision preferred against the order dated January 18, 1991, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner Jhansi Division, Jhansi, arising out of an order dated August 2, 1989, passed by the learned trial Court in a case instituted under Section 198(4) of the U.P Z.A. and L.R. Act on the ground of irregular allot ­ment.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the suo mow proceedings for can ­cellation of the lease granted in favour of the revisionist under Section 198(4) of the U.P Z.A. and L.R. Act were initiated against the revisionist one Khitta in whose favour a lease of plot No. 553/18, area 4.56 acres was granted in 1970, The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial has cancelled the lease of plot No. 553/18 (M), area 3.32 acres and has main ­tained the lease of the remaining area. Aggrieved by this order a revision was preferred. The learned Additional Com ­missioner has dismissed the revision. Hence this second revision. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as learned D.G.C(R), appearing for the U.P State. I have also perused the records on file. For the revisionist it was contended that at the time of allotment, the revisionist had no land from before and he is a Harijan by caste, that the learned trial Court has wrongly and illegally cancelled the lease granted in his favour that at the time of allotment the maximum limit of holding which could be held in the region of Bun -del Khand was 9.37 acres eventhen, the lease of the revisionist was cancel led by t he learned trial Court is quite against the provisions of law, that the Additional Col ­lector, Lalitpur has cancelled the aforesaid lease on August 2, 1989, whereas he had no any legal authority to try the aforesaid case in view of the case -law reported in R.D. 1996, page 190(H.C), that as per the dic ­tum of law enunciated by a Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad, in the aforesaid case law, the aforesaid order passed by the learned Additional Collec ­tor, Lalitpur is totally without jurisdiction and void. The D.G.C(R) appearing for the U.P State, submitted that the above case law must be respected.
(3.) I have carefully and closely con ­sidered -the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant records on file. On examination of the records, I find that the Additional Collector, Lalitpur has cancelled the aforesaid lease granted in favour of the revisionist. I have respectful ­ly read the aforesaid case -law reported in R.D, 1996 page 190 in which it has been clearly held by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, that the power of cancellation of an allotment of land cannot be exercised by an Additional Collector who is neither the Collector nor an Assistant Collector for the purpose of the Act. As such the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court is totally without jurisdiction and void. The learned Counsel for the revisionist vehemently contended that in the circumstances, the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court must be quashed.;