SAEEDUDDIN Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was granted a lease of plots in question by the Gaon Sabha, Deoli on 2nd October, 1963. He came in possession of the said land and paid rent thereof. However, on 30th November 1971 Mohsin Raza, the opposite party no. 4 filed an application before the Collector, Pratapgarh for cancellation of that lease on the ground that it was illegal. He prayed that suo motu action be taken by the Collector and the lease be cancelled. THE Collector sent that application to the Tahsildar for lnquiry and report. THE Tahsildar made an inquiry and submitted a report to the Sub-Divisional Officer with his opinion that the lease had been given against the rules and that it should be cancelled. THE Sub-Divisional Officer took evidence of the parties and by his order dated 23rd October, 19,73 cancelled the lease granted by the Land Management Committee. Saeeduddin then filed a revision against that order. THE Additional Commissioner recommended that the revision be allowed and the order of the trial court be set aside. THE Board of Revenue, however, disagreed with the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner and dismissed the revision petition. Saeeduddin has preferred the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the quashing of the order of the Board of Revenue and also of the Sub-Divisional Officer. He has also asked for a writ in the nature of mandamus that his possession be not interfered with. THE petition has been opposed.

(2.) FOR the petitioner it was urged that by reason of the provisions of section 198 as substituted by the Amendment Act no. 35 of 1970 the Collector of the district alone had the jurisdiction to cancel the lease in question and that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction and authority to do so. The Board of Revenue had referred to the provisions of Sec. 198 as amended by U. P. Act No. 4 of 1969 and had held that in view of section 23 of the Amendment Act the Assistant Collector continued to have the jurisdiction to take suo motu action for cancellation of a lease granted by the Land Management Committee. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that section 198 was further amended by the Amendment Act no. 35 of 1970 and as there was no provision in that Act of 1970 retaining the power of the Assistant Collector to deal with a lease granted in the year 1963, the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was without jurisdiction.