KAMTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revisions petition under Section 333 of the UPZA & LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), preferred against judgment and order, dated 22-3-1997, passed by the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur in Case No. 180 of 1995- 96/Lalitpur under Section 198(4) of the Act, cancelling the lease granted in favour of the revisionist.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that on the report of the Tehsil concerned, these proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act for cancellation of the lease, in question, were initiated against the revisionist, inter- alia on the ground that the revisionist was not an eligible person for the grant of the lease, in question. The learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur, after completing the requisite formalities, cancelled the lease in question, holding that the revisionist does not come within the category of landless agricultural labourer, as he had sufficient land, prior to the grant of the lease, in question. It is against this order that the instant revision petition has been preferred before the Board.

(3.) I have closely and carefully examined the submissions made before me by the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned DGC (R) and the relevant records, on file. A bare perusal of the record clearly reveals that on the report of the Tehsil, concerned, these proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act were initiated and a show-cause notice was issued to the revisionist under the signatures of the Reader to the Collector, Lalitpur. The revisionist, Kamta contested the case alleging inter alia that the notice, being illegal and irregular, be discharged. The learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur, by means of his order, dated 22-3-1997, had finally disposed of the proceedings, cancelling the lease in dispute granted in favour of the revisionist. As per the dictum of law enunciated in the case law, referred to above by the learned counsel for the revisionist, only the Collector has authority to enquire into and to adjudicate upon the matter in question and the additional Collector has no authority in law to do so. It, therefore, follows that the order, passed by the learned Court, below, is clearly without jurisdiction and void ab-initio and the same cannot be sustained in law. In view of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I need not enter into the merits of the instant case. To my mind, the impugned order, passed by the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur being without jurisdiction, deserves to be set aside and this revision petition is liable to be allowed on the point of jurisdiction only.