NIRBHAI SINGH Vs. L.M.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act (here in after referred to as the Act) preferred against the judgment and order dated 17-1-1995, passed by the learned Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, dismissing the revision and maintaining the order dated 21-7-1988 passed by the learned Addition­al Collector, Lalitpur in a case under Sec­tion 198 (4) of the Act.

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that .suo moto proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act for cancellation of the leases granted in favour of the revisionist were initiated, inter alia on the ground that the revisionists were not eligible persons for the grant of the aforesaid leases. The learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur, after completing the requisite formalities, cancelled the leases in question, holding that the revisionists had sufficient land at the time of allotment and vested the land in dispute in the Gaon Sabha. Aggrieved by this order, a revision was preferred. The learned Commissioner too has dismissed the same, upholding the order passed by the learned Additional Collector, Lalit­pur. It is against this order that the instant revision petition has been preferred before the Board.

(3.) I have carefully and closely ex­amined the submissions made before me by the learned Counsel for the parties and the relevant records, on file. A bare perusal of the records clearly reveals that on an application moved by I lira Lal, these suo moio proceedings under Section 1 )>S (4) of the Act were initiated against the revisionists. On 13-1-1987, the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur has or­dered the case to be registered and notices to be issued to the revisionists and vide his order dated 21-7-1988, he has finally can­celled the leases in question granted in favour of the revisionists. No show-cause notice appears to have been issued as the same are not on the record. Issuance of show-cause notice is mandatory as per Sec­tion 198 (5) of the Act. Moreover, as per the dictum of law, enunciated by the Hon'ble High Court, in the case law, reported in 1996 RD 190 (DB. H.C.), only the Collector has authority, in law, to en­quire into and to adjudicate upon the mat­ter in question and the additional Collec­tor has no authority, in law to do so. Ii, therefore, follows that the order passed by the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur and the subsequent order passed by the learned Commissioner arc quite without jurisdiction and void. In view of the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 1 need not to enter into the merits of the present case. To my mind, this revision petition deserves to be allowed on the point of jurisdiction only and the impugned orders, passed by the learned Courts below are liable to be set aside.