LEELADHAR Vs. DAYA SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order dated 26-5-99 passed by learned Chief Revenue Officer Ballia the case No. 84/95 under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that Leeladhar and three others filed a complaint for cancellation of lease granted in favour of Daya Shanker and Gaya Shanker. The complainants claimed that they were in possession over the land in question from before 30-6-85 that trees planted by their father existed therein and that the land in question was not vacant on the date of the allotment. The allottees filed objection. The learned Chief Revenue Officer by the impugned order rejected the application for cancellation moved by Leeladhar and others. It also directed that possession be taken back from Leeladhar. Feeling aggrieved by this order the present revision has been filed.

(3.) IT is now settled principle of law that proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act can be entertained and decided by the Collector alone. This view was enunciated by the Hon'ble High Court in 1995 ACJ 1313 which has been followed by the Board of Revenue in 1999 RD 699 and 801. In these circumstances the order passed by the learned Chief Revenue Officer was without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed on this ground alone. On merits took he has failed to considered the material on record properly and his order is not supported by any evidence on record and is not sustainable in law.