NIHAL SINGH Vs. L.M.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) preferred against the judgment and order dated 1-11-1995 passed by the learned Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi in revision No. 19 of 1994-95/Lalitpur arising out of the judgment and order dated 25-2-1994 passed by the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur in proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that on the report of the tehsil concerned these proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act for cancellation of the lease granted in favour of the revisionist were initiated, inter alia on the ground that the revisionist was not an eligible person for the grant of the aforesaid lease. The learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur after compeleting the requisite formalities cancelled the lease in question, holding it as illegal as the land in question, is recorded as pasture land and such land falling under Section 132 of the Act, cannot be allotted under Rules on the subject. Aggrieved by this order a revision petition was preferred. The learned Commissioner too has dismissed the same. Hence this second revision petition.

(3.) I have carefully and closely examined the arguments advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned DGC (R) and the relevant records on file. A bare perusal of the record reveals that vide order dated 8-11-1993, the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur has ordered the case to be registered and notice to be issued to the revisionist. Moreover, no show cause notice appears to have been issued in compliance to the aforesaid order dated 8-11-1993 as the same is not on the record while the issuance of show-cause notice immediately in view of the Section 198 (5) of the Act. The learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur by means of his order dated 25-7-1994 has cancelled the lease granted in favour of the revisionist. As per the dictum of law enunciated in the case law referred to above, only the Collector has authority in law to enquire into and to adjudicate upon the matter in question and the additional Collector has no authority in law to do so and as such the whole proceedings of the case are vitiated in law ab initio. It follows that the order passed by the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur and the subsequent order passed by the learned Commissioner are clearly void and without jurisdiction and the same cannot be sustained in law. As such, in view of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I need not enter into the merits of the present case.