PRAKASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act (here in after referred to as the Act) preferred against the judg­ment and order dated 30-5-2000 passed by the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur in case No. 6 of 1998-99 under Section 198 (4) of the Act, cancelling the lease in ques­tion granted in favour of the revisionist.

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that on the tehsil report the proceed­ings for cancellation of lease granted in favour of the revisionist, Prakash under Section 198 (4) of the Act were initiated on the ground that the settlement area of the plot No. 1030 was 22.41 acres and no area is left after the allotment to other allottees of the village concerned for allotment to the revisionist. Notices to show cause were issued to the revisionist as well as the LMC concerned to show cause as to why the aforesaid lease be not cancelled. The revisionist contested the case and alleged inter alia that the allotment had been made as per the rules. LMC did not contest the case. The learned additional Collector, Lalitpur after completing the requisite formalities, cancelled the lease in question and ordered for expunction of the name of the revisionist from the revenue records. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) I have closely and carefully ex­amined the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned DGC (R) and the relevant records on file. On a close examination of the records, it is manifestly clear that the then learned Collector, Lalitpur has or­dered the case to be registered and notices to be issued to the opposite parties on 2-11-1998 while the aforesaid lease has been granted in favour of the revisionist on 15-7-1992 and as such the instant proceedings for cancellation are clearly time barred. The learned trial Court should have examined the matter before the initiation of the instant proceedings. In view of the provisions contained in U.P. Act No. XXIV of 1986 dated 4-12-1986, these proceedings could have been in­itiated with in five years from the date of the aforesaid allotment Le. 15-7-1992. In order to appreciate the facts of the instant case, the aforesaid order dated 2-11-1998 is reproduced as under:"Swamev Karyavahi kc adharpar vad darj register Ho. An. Slrre. Notice clltara 198 (4) jo. VLAdlii. jari ho. Patravali dinank 3-12- 98 ko prastut ho.