VIDYAWATI DEVI Vs. LALITA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by Smt. Vidyawati Devi against the order dated 4 -6 -1996 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur in Revision No. 48/47/M of 1994 District Mau. By the impugned order the learned Additional Commissioner dismissed the revision and upheld the order of Chief Revenue Officer dated 11 -3 -1994.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that a lease for planting tress granted in favour of Smt. Vidyawati Devi. Proceedings were initiated under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for cancellation of the said lease. The grounds on which the lease was sought to be cancelled was that the allottee was a person belonging to Yadav caste and had enough land in her husband's name and did not come within the category of eligible persons. The trial Court cancelled the lease. Smt. Vidyawati Devi filed a revision before the learned Additional Commissioner which was dismissed. Hence, the present revision.

(3.) IT is noteworthy that in the present case lease had been granted for plantation of tress, the validity of which could not be seen in proceedings under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. This point was raised before the trial Court, but it wrongly observed that Hariyali Patta could also be scrutinised under the provisions of Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. It has been specifically held by the Board in 1990 RD 255 that allotment of Gaon Sabha for plantation of grove cannot be examined under the provisions of Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. It has been clearly held by this Court that proceedings may lie any where but they never lie under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. In view of this it is obvious that the learned Chief Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings and his order was without jurisdiction. It may also be mentioned here that even when the proceedings were under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act the jurisdiction to cancel the same lies with the Collector and the order of the Chief Revenue Officer was without jurisdiction in view of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble High Court as published in 1995 A.C.J. page 1313. The order passed by the Court of first instance was without jurisdiction. It is not necessary to consider other aspects of the matter. The learned Additional Commissioner was wrong in dismissing the revision without assigning reasons.