PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference dated 26-2-1997 made by the learned Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in respect of the revision petition No. 59 of 1995-96/Lalitpur, Pradeep Kumar v. State, arising out of the judgment and order dated 24-3-1993 passed by the learned trial Court in proceedings under Section 198(4) of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), recommending that the impugned order be set aside and the case be remanded to the learned Collector, Lalitpur for decision afresh on merits, according to law.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the instant reference are that on the tehsil report, the proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act were initiated against the revisionist for cancellation of the lease granted in his favour on the ground of irregular allotment. The allottee concerned did not contest the case despite due notice. The learned trial Court, vide its order dated 24-3-1993, cancelled the lease in question and ordered the land in dispute to vest in the Gaon Sabha concerned and therefore, it is against this order that the instant revision petition has been preferred by Pradeep Kumar before the learned Commissioner, who has made this reference to the board with his aforesaid recommendation.

(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 including the reference made by the learned Commissioner. A bare perusal of the record on file clearly reveals that the learned Commissioner is of the view that since the impugned order has been rendered by the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur who has as per the case law reported in 1996 RD 190, no authority in law to enquire into and adjudicate upon the cases under Section 198(4) of the Act, the impugned order is clearly without jurisdiction and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside and the case deserves re-trial on merits, according to law. I am, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, fully convinced that his view being a fact, is quite logical in correct perspective of law and therefore, the recommendation made by him very richly deserves acceptance in toto.