MOTI LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are four revision petitions preferred against the judgment dated 17-5-2000 passed by the learned trial Court separately in proceedings initiated against the revisionist under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act (here in after in short referred to as the Act). Since the facts and controversy involved in these revision petitions are similar, these revision peti­tions are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The revision petition No. 48 of 1999- 2000/Lalitpur shall be the leading case.

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that on tehsil report, the proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act for the cancellation of the leases granted in favour of the opposite parties were initiated by the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur who after completing the requisite for­malities cancelled the aforesaid leases on 17-5-2000. Aggrieved by this order these revision petitions have been preferred before the Board.

(3.) I have closely and carefully ex­amined the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the relevant records on file. On a close scrutiny of the relevant records it is crystal clear that the notices issued by the learned Addi­tional Collector, Lalitpur to the revisionist are clearly time barred as the Section 1986) of the Act provides that-