KUNJ KUNWAR/JAHAR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two revision petitioners preferred against the judgment and orders dated 7-3-1993 and 15- 3-1993 respectively passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, arising out of an order dated 30-3-1991 passed by the learned trial Court in proceedings initiated under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The facts and controversy involved in these two revision petitions being similar, the same are being decided by this common judgment. Revision petition No. 97 of 1993-94 Smt. Kunj Kunwar v. State, be the leading case.

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that proceedings for cancellation of the lease granted in favour of the revisionists were initiated under Section 198 (4) of the Act on the Tehsil report on the ground of irregular allotment. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite formalities by means of its order dated 30-3-1991 passed separately cancelled the leases granted in favour of the opposite parties. Aggrieved by these orders two revision petitions were preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner upheld the orders passed by the learned trial Court and dismissed the revision petitions. Hence these two second revision petitions.

(3.) I have thoroughly and closely examined the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionists as well as the learned DGC (R) and also the relevant records on file. On a close scrutiny of the records, I find that the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist have much force. The relevant records clearly reveals that both the leases have been granted in favour of the revisionists on 13-11-1960 and in 1960, as per the provisions existing at the time of grant of the leases even a person living outside the circle could be allotted the lease under clause (d), Section 198 (1) of the Act. It is also crystal clear that in both the cases the Ahalmad to the Additional Collector, Lalitpur has issued the show cause notices to the revisionists and the leases granted in favour of the revisionists have been cancelled by the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur and as such these proceedings in the instant cases have been rendered vitiated ab initio in law. Moreover, as per the dictum of law as enunciated in the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court (Division Bench), Allahabad, reported in 1996 RD 190, the Additional Collector has no jurisdiction to cancel the leases and his aforesaid orders dated 30-3-1991 are totally without jurisdiction illegal and void. In these circumstances, I entirely agree with the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist as to the jurisdiction of the Additional Collector in respect of the instant cases.