SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act (here in after referred to as the Act), preferred against 'the judg­ment dated 31-12-1999 passed by the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur in case No. 198 of 1998-99 under Section 198 (4) of the Act, canceling the lease granted in favour of the revisionist.

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that on the tehsil report suo moto proceedings for cancellation of the lease granted in favour of the revisionist were initiated under Section 198 (4) of the Act on the ground of irregular allotment. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite formalities cancelled the lease in question on 31-12-1999 and also ordered the land in question to be recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha in revenue papers. It is against this order that this revision petition has been preferred before the Board.

(3.) I have carefully and closely ex­amined the submissions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and the relevant records on file. On an examina­tion of the record, it is manifestly clear that the then Collector, Lalitpur has ordered the case to be registered and notice to be issued under Section 198 (4) of the Act on 4-1-1999 while the lease in question has been granted in favour of the revisionist on 29-1-1988 and as such the instant proceed­ings under Section 198(4) of the Act arc clearly time barred. The learned trial Court should have looked into the matter and initiated the proceedings of the instant case if the matter in question was with in time for initiating the aforesaid proceed­ings. In view of the provisions as contained in U.P. Act XXIV of 1986 dated 4-12-1986 the cancellation proceedings should have been initiated with in 5 years from the date of the execution of the lease i.e. 29-1-1988. Considering the entire facts and cir­cumstances of the instant case the aforesaid contention raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist concerning limitation has much force. These proceed­ings should have been initiated against the revisionist in consonance with the provisions of law on the subject. The learned trial Court has ceased to have any powers to initiate the instant proceedings against the revisionist as per the provisions of law.