RAM ADHAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), preferred against the order dated 20-6-2003 passed by the learned Collector, Lalitpur in proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act, rejecting an application dated 20-6-2003 for dropping the proceedings in question.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act initiated against the revisionist for cancellation of the lease granted in favour of his father, Harjoo on the ground of irregular allotment, Ram Adhar, the revisionist moved an application on 20-6-2003, praying that the proceedings against him may be dropped and the show-cause notice discharged. The learned trial Court rejected this application and ordered for adducing evidence, vide its order dated 20-6-2003 and therefore, it is against this order that the instant revision petition has been preferred by Ram Adhar before the Board.

(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the arguments, advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned DGC (R) and have also scanned the record on file. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention here that the suo moto action, initiated against the revisionist was not justified in the facts and circumstances of the instant case because the same has not been taken as per the case law reported in 1986 RD 137. A bare perusal of the record on file clearly reveals that no notice was ever issued to the revisionists nor was he afforded any opportunity of being heard, prior to initiating such action. The learned Collector also not recorded any reason as to why was he so satisfied to take such action and therefore, such an action was clearly not justified in the eyes of law. As a matter of fact, the alleged allotment was made in 1366-F, while as per record, the show-cause notice was issued to the revisionist on 4-12-2000 which is clearly beyond the period of limitation, prescribed under Section 198(6) of the Act, as per the case law reported in 1993 RD 233. The allegation of the revisionist that the plot numbers which are shown in the show cause notice were never allotted to his father, Harjoo, is also corroborated from the fact that before remand of the case, the plot numbers and their areas, shown in the show-cause notice are quite different from those shown in the show-cause notice, issued after the remand of the case. The learned trial Court ought to have firstly satisfied itself as to whether or not any lease for plots mentioned in the show-cause notice had ever been granted to the father of the revisionist before proceeding ahead, in the matter in question because it is nothing but a futile exercise if it is found otherwise and therefore, on all the aforesaid counts, I am satisfied that the impugned order cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be allowed to sustain and this revision petition very richly deserves to be allowed.