MULAYAM SINGH Vs. STATE

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 28-4-1995, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi arising out of an order dated 3-2-1993 passed by the learned trial Court in proceedings initiated under Section 198 (4) of the Act.

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that these proceedings for cancellation of the lease were initiated under Section 198 (4) of the Act on the Tehsil report on the ground of the revisionist being a resident of outside the circle. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite formalities, cancelled the aforesaid lease granted in favour of the revisionist on 3-2-1993. Aggrieved by this order, a revision petition was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner has upheld the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court and dismissed the revision petition on 28-4-1995. Hence this second revision petition.

(3.) I have closely and carefully examined the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and the relevant records on file. On an examination of the relevant record, it is crystal clear that the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur has passed the aforesaid order dated 3-2-1993. Apart from this the show-cause notice has been issued to the revisionist under the signature of the Additional Collector, Lalitpur. As per the dictum of law enunciated by the Hon'ble High Court in the decision reported in 1996 RD 190 (DB), the Additional Collector has no authority in law to enquire into and adjudicate upon the matter in question and as such these proceedings have vitiated in law ab initio and the final order passed by the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur on 3-2-1993 is void and without jurisdiction. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the instant case, I need not enter into the merits of this case which is liable to be allowed on the point of jurisdiction.