SANSKRIT PATHSHALA YAQUBPUR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Yadav, Member. This is a reference made by the Additional Commissioner, Bareilly Division, arising out of the proceeding under Section 198 (4) of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that the Plot No. 86m/1-13-O situate in village Yakubpur, Nawabganj, Bareilly was allotted to Sanskrit Pathshala as back as in the year 1965 in respect of which on the report of SDO, Nawabganj, dated 10-12-92 the proceeding under Section 198 (4) of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act was started before the Collector, Bareilly. Prior to this, the proceeding for cancellation of the said lease was done in the matter, was challenged before the Collector, Bareilly which was also decided by the Additional Collector on 13-8-86. The order dated 18-8-86 was challenged before the Commissioner, Bareilly and a reference in respect of which was made to the Board of Revenue which was decided, vide the order dated 9-2-88 whereby the matter was remanded to Commissioner Bareilly with the certain directions then after the matter came up before the Collector Bareilly and on the report of SDO, Nawabganj, the matter again came up for enquiry and it was found by the trial Court that the allottees were not eligible persons and so cancelled the leases on 20-1-93. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, a revision was preferred before the Commissioner, Bareilly Division which has been heard and the aforesaid reference has been made by the Additional Commissioner before the Board which is being heard before this Court.

(3.) FROM the above discussion it appears that the lease in question was of 1965 and it is upto June 1968 such leases were enquired by the concerned SDO. The findings recorded by the Additional Commissioner is that such leases cannot be enquired by the Additional Collector or Collector and the enquiry made by them is without jurisdiction. Clearly the enquiry has been made by the Additional Collector who has no jurisdiction. It is the Collector who has got jurisdiction to make enquiry to such leases granted for agricultural purposes after the 30th June, 1968. The leases in question should have been enquired by the SDO concerned but the same has not been done in the matter. The findings recorded by the Additional Commissioner is detailed one and he has done a good exercise in dealing with the matter. I do not find any apparent illegality, irregularity and jurisdictional error in the findings recorded by the Additional Commissioner as such, the same is liable to be accepted. In the result, the reference is accepted, the revision is allowed and the impugned orders passed by the Court below/trial Court is hereby set aside. Revision allowed. .