SOORYAMAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Parmeshwar Yadav for the contesting respondent no. 4, Sri Tariq Maqbool Khan for the respondent no. 2 Gaon Sabha and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1. It is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent no. 3 keeping in view the findings and the observations made herein under.

(2.) THE short question involved in this petition is as to whether the Additional Collector could have proceeded to cancel the lease granted by the Collector in proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, and as to whether on the basis of a miscellaneous application which presumably is under the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, such action could have been taken. The revision filed by the respondents has been allowed by the learned Additional Collector holding that such a proceeding under a miscellaneous application was without jurisdiction and that the Additional Collector had no authority to proceed to cancel the allotments in such proceedings.

(3.) THE respondents have filed a recall application which had been rejected by the Additional Collector against which a revision was filed which has been allowed holding that the Additional Collector erroneously exercised the powers for cancellation of the lease under the Ceiling Act of 1960. Sri Yadav therefore submits that the order does not suffer from any infirmity and that the learned Additional Commissioner was absolutely right in setting aside the order of the Additional Collector. Learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and the learned Standing Counsel have adopted the same arguments.