JAI SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act preferred against the judgment and order dated 22-12-1999 passed by the learned trial Court in the proceedings initiated under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act.

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that proceedings for cancellation of the lease granted in favour of the revisionist were initiated on Tehsil report. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial, cancelled the aforesaid lease on 28-12-1985. Aggrieved by this order, the State of U.P. preferred a revision. The learned lower revisional Court sent a reference to the Board with the recommendation that the lease of 0.42 decimal be cancelled. By means of the order dated 30-7-1997, passed by the Board, the matter was remanded to the learned trial Court for disposal in consonance with the provisions of the law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing and adducing evidence in support of their claims to the parties concerned. The learned trial Court by means of its order dated 22-12-1999 has cancelled both the leases granted in favour of the revisionist. Aggrieved by this order, this revision petition has been preferred.

(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned DGC (R) and have also gone through the relevant records on file. A close scrutiny of the records reveals that initially the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur has ordered the case to be registered and notice to be issued to the opposite party on 19- 11-1979. The notice has been sent to the revisionist under the signatures of the Ahalmad to the Additional Collector, Lalitpur whereas as per the provisions of Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act, only the Collector is empowered to enquire into the matter in question and adjudicate upon the same. Neither the learned Additional Collector had any authority in law to order the case to be registered and notice to be issued to the opposite party nor was the aforesaid Ahalmad to the Additional Collector legally authorised to send the show-cause notice to the revisionist under his signatures in view of the provisions contained under Section 198 (4) of Act I of 1951 and as such the subsequent proceedings taken against the revisionist (lease- holder) were void ab initio. In these circumstances the aforesaid impugned order passed by the learned Court below is vitiated in law.