IMRAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition preferred against the order dated 28-10-1999 passed by the Ad­ditional Collector, Lalitpur in case No. 247 of 1997-98 under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act (here in after referred to as the Act), cancelling the lease granted in favour of the revisionist.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are ihatsuomoto proceedings for cancella­tion of the lease granted in favour of the revisionist were initiated under Section 198 (4) of the Act on the tehsil report. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite formalities cancelled the aforesaid lease by means of its order dated 28-10-1999. It is against this order that this revision petiiion has been preferred.

(3.) I have carefully and closely con­sidered the submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant records on file. On a close examination of the relevant record, it is manifestly clear that on the tehsil report suo moto proeeedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act for cancellation of the leases in question were initiated and the case was ordered to be registered and notices to be issued vide order dated 3-7-1990 passed by the Collector, Lalitpur. It is also amply clear that the show cause notices were issued by the learned Addi­tional Collector, Lalitpur on 14-7-1998 and the leases in question were also can­celled by him vide his order dated 28-10-1999. As per the dictum of law enunciated by the Hon'ble High Court (DB) in the case law reported in 1996 RD 190, the proceedings in the instant case have been rendered vitiated and the impugned order dated 28-10-1999 passed by the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur is totally void and without jurisdiction as the Addi­tional Collector has no authority in law to enquire into and to adjudicate upon the matter in question and as such the aforesaid impugned order dated 28-10-1999 passed by the learned Additional Collector, Lalilpur deserves to be set aside.