RAM CHARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Sea ion 333-A of UPZA and LR Act preferred against the judgment and order dated 12-3-97 passed by the learned Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi arising out of an order dated 22-3-1996 passed by the learned trial Court in proceedings initiated under Sec­tion 198 (4) of the UPZAand LR Act.

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that these proceedings for cancellation of the lease granted in favour of the revisionist, Ram Charan were initiated under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act on the Tehsil report. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial has cancelled the aforesaid lease on 22-3-1996. Aggrieved by this order a revision petition was preferred. The learned Commissioner has upheld the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court and dismissed the revision on 12-3-1997. Hence this second revision petition.

(3.) I have closely examined the sub­missions made by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and 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 UPZA and LR Act on 20-2-1995 while the lease in question has been granted in favour of the revisionist on 20-12-1989 and as such the instant proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act are clearly time-barred and as such the learned trial Court should have looked into the matter and initiated the proceedings of the instant case if the matter in question was within 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 within 5 years from the date of the execution of the lease Le. 20-12-1989. 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. The learned trial Court has ceased to have any powers to initiate the instant proceed­ings against the revisionist, as per the provisions of law.