RAJBALA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. It is not in dispute that? a lease was granted to the petitioner under Section 195 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. But ? after a complaint / application being made at the instance? of respondent no.5, the lease was cancelled vide order dated 24.6.1999 passed? by the Additional Collector-respondent no.3. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision which was dismissed in defualt vide order dated 21.12.2000. Thereafter a restoration application was moved? by the petitioner which too was dismissed on 30.12.2002 holding that the petitioner did not appear on the date fixed in the case and she had no interest to pursue the revision. The petitioner again moved an application explaining the situation and giving the facts in detail? that since she had engaged a counsel for pairvi of the case, as such, she could not appear on the date fixed and on account of fault on the part of the counsel, the petitioner's restoration application could not have been rejected. But without considering these facts and circumstances of the case in right perspective, the review application has also been dismissed vide order dated 19.5.2003.? These orders are impugned, in the instant writ petition.?

(2.) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that an application moved by the respondent no. 5 for cancellation of the lease granted in favour? of the petitioner was beyond the prescribed period of limitation, therefore , initial order passed by the Additional Collector was wholly without jurisdiction. The revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, but the petitioner has sufficiently / satisfactorily explained the circumstances under which she could not appear before the Court, therefore, the restoration application moved by the petitioner ought not to have been rejected? and review application at least should have been accepted by the revisional authority, but at all the times, the? revenue courts have failed to consider the legal position in right perspective that on account of fault of counsel, the litigants should not suffer and further, the case should have been decided on merit? instead of deciding the same on technical ground. The petitioner's submission finds support from the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Ramji Das and others Vs. Mohan Singh-1978 ARC 496.