STATE Vs. NATHOO RAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a ref­erence, dated 10-9-1991, made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, with his recommenda­tion that the order dated 7-4-1985, passed by the learned trial Court be set aside and the case be remanded to the learned trial Court for decision afresh on merits in the light of the observations, made in the aforesaid order dated 10- 9- 1991 .

(2.) , Brief and relevant facts of the ease are that.wtomoto proceedings for cancella­tion of Ihe lease, granted in favour of the revisionist were initiated under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act (here in after referred to as the Act), on the ground that the grand-father of the revisionist had 9.76 acres of land before the aforesaid allotment. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite for­malities, found no irregularity in the ex­ecution of the aforesaid lease, in favour-of the revisionist and has maintained the aforesaid lease by means of its order, dated 7-4-1985. Aggrieved by this order, a revision petition was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner has made this reference, with his aforesaid recommendation.

(3.) I have carefully and closely ex­amined the submissions, made by the learned DGC (R) as well as the learned Counsel for the opposite party and the relevant records on file. On a close scrutiny of the record, it is manifestly clear that the then Additional Collector, Lalitpur was ordered the case to be registered and notice to be issued to the opposite party vide his order dated 7-8-1980. Moreover, under Section 198 (5) of the Act provides that "no order for cancellation of an allot­ment or lease shall be made under sub-sec­tion (4), unless a notice to show cause is served on the person in whose favour the allotment or lease was made or on his legal representatives:Provided that no such notice shall be necessary in proceedings for the cancellation of any allotment or lease where such proceedings were pend­ing before the Collector or any other Court or authority on August 18,1980. No such notice is available on the record to have been issued to the opposite party, as has been provided under the aforesaid Section 198 (5) of the Act. Further more it is also pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid order concerning registration of the case and issuance of the notice to the opposite party should have been ordered by the Collector concerned and not by the Additional Collec­tor. In addition to this, the aforesaid final order, dated 7-4-1985, has been passed by the learned Additional Collector, Lalit­pur, while he had no authority in law to enquire into and to adjudicate upon the matter, in question under Section 198 (4) of the Act, as per the dictum of law, enun­ciated by the Hon'blc High Court (DB) in the case law reported in 1996 RD190.