GUNDHA Vs. L.M.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a review petition preferred to set aside the judgment and order dated 14-2-2000 passed by the Board and the lease of the applicants be held valid and proper.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the review petitioner at length and perused the relevant records on file. None appeared on behalf of the opposite party State of U.P. despite due notice. The revision petition preferred by the review petitioner has been dismissed vide order dated 14-2-2000 passed by this Court. For the review petitioner, it was contended that in 1957 the lease was granted in favour of the revisionist while the notice issued to the revisionist is highly time-barred ; that the Additional Collector, Lalitpur has or­dered the case to be registered and notice to be issued to the opposite party on 19-4-76 and the said notice was issued to the revisionist under the signature of the Ahalmad to the Additional Collector, Lalitpur ; that the judgment and order dated 23-9-1982 cancelling the lease in question has been rendered by the then learned additional Collector, Lalitpur and as such the proceedings of the instant case have been rendered void ab initio and the aforesaid order dated 23-9- 1982 passed by the learned Additional Collector is totally void and without jurisdiction in view of the case law reported in 1996 RD 190 (DB.HC) ; that the Additional Collector had no authority in law to enquire into and to adjudicate upon the matter in question as only the collector was legally authorised to do the same ; that in the circumstances, the subsequent proceedings taken are also vitiated in law and as such this review petition be allowed and the aforesaid or­ders passed by the learned Courts below be set aside ; that the learned trial Court has illegally cancelled the aforesaid lease granted in favour of the revisionist as the land acquired after the date of the grant of the lease has been wrongfully included in the statement 61-Kha and the revisionist has been treated as a resident if outside the circle as at the time of the grant of the lease as per the provisions under clause (d) of Section 198 (1) of the UPZA and LR Act (here in after referred to as the Act) existing at that time, any other person of the circle was entitled to be allotted the land and this provision continued to be effective till 1974 and as such there is on apparent mistake on the face of the record in the impugned order.

(3.) THE papers on file clearly reveals that the then learned Additional Collec­tor, Lalitpur has ordered the case to be resigned and notice to be issued by means of his order dated 19-4-1976and the Ahal-mad to the Additional Collector, Lalitpur has issued the notice to the revisionist under his own signatures. From a bare perusal of the record, it is also crystal clear that the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur has passed an order cancelling the aforesaid lease granted in favour of the revisionist on 23-9-1982 and as such as per the dictum of law enunciated by the Hon'ble High Court reported in 1996 RD 190, the proceedings of the present case have been rendered vitiated in awab initio and the aforementioned order dated 23-9-1982 passed by the then learned Addition­al Collector, Lalitpur is absolutely void and without jurisdiction. In these cir­cumstances, I need not enter into the merits of the instant case as the aforesaid order dated 23-9-1982 passed by the learned Additional Collector, Lalispur as well as theorder dated 14-8-1985 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner arc not sustainable in law and are liable to be set aside and the revision petition deserves to be allowed on the point of jurisdiction.