HARI KISHUN Vs. GARIB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision filed by Hari Kishun s/o Ram Sakal against the order dated 20.1.1997 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division Gorakhpur in Revision No. 65/63/Mau-94 dismissing the same and upholding the order dated 6.7.1994 passed by the Additional Collec­tor. Mau in case No. 845 under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z. A. and L.R. Act

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are triat Hari Kishun filed a complaint under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for the cancellation of lease granted in favour of Garib on the ground that there been no munadi or mushtahari, that the allotment was illegal, that the land had been in his possession from before the date of vesting and was not vacant and that the lease be cancelled. Garib filed objection, stating that the allotment had been validly made in his favour, who is a member of Scheduled Caste and is a landless agricul­tural labourer. A report was called for from Tehsil. The trial Court found that the allotment had been made by the resolution dated 12.2.1976 which had been approved by the S.D.O. on 13.3.1976 and the present application was barred by time. It rejected the application of Hari Kishun. Feeling aggrieved, Hari Kishun filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner Gorakhpur Division Gorakhpur which too was dismissed. He has now filed this revision before the Board.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revisionist had argued that in view of the Division Bench decision of the Hon'ble High Court, as published in 1995 A.C.J. page 1313, the Additional Collector had no juris­diction to pass any order in the proceedings. He submitted further that the patta had been granted in contravention of the provisions of the Rules and was illegal and ought to have been cancelled. The learned counsel for the O.P. submitted that the allotment had been proposed on 12.2.1976 and S.D.O. had ap­proved it on 13.3.1976 and hence the com­plaint moved on 11.9.1991 was clearly barred by time and had been rightly rejected by the Courts below. He sub­mitted further that the order of the Courts below cannot now be challenged on the ground that they had no jurisdiction.