SANTOO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA & LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), preferred against the judgment and order dated 14-6-2002 and the show-cause notice dated 13-2-2002 passed issued by the learned Collector, Lalitpur in case No. 144 of 2001-02, rejecting the application, dated 31-5-2002, for dropping the proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act on the ground of limitation.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts, giving rise to the instant revision petition are that after the order dated 13-7-2001 passed by the Board, the learned Collector, concerned, ordered on 13-2-2002 for initiation of the proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act suo-moto and in compliance thereof, a show-cause notice was issued under his signatures for the proceedings, in question for cancellation of the lease. During the pendency of these proceedings, the allottee, concerned, moved an application on 31-5-2002 for dropping the proceedings in question being time-barred. The learned Collector concerned, vide his order dated 14-6-2002, rejected this application and therefore, it is against this order that the instant revision petition has been preferred by the revisionist, Santoo 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 suo-moto action ordered by the learned Collector, concerned on 13-2-2002 was not at all justified in law in the facts and circumstances of the instant case in view of the case law, reported in 1986 RD 137, for the simple reason that as per the aforesaid case law, no notice was ever issued to the revisionist (lessee) prior to the initiation of such an action nor has any reason been recorded by the learned Court below as to why it was so satisfied to take such an action against the revisionist. Since the requirement of law was not observed, such an action cannot be categorised as justified in the eyes of law, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. As a matter of fact, the lease in question was granted on 15-11-1988 to the revisionist, while the show-cause notice was issued to him on 13-2-2002 and therefore, such a notice is clearly barred by limitation in view of the provisions of Section 198(6)(b) of the Act and as such, the claim of the revisionist that the instant proceedings are barred by limitation is perfectly justified in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as well as in view of the settled principle of law and therefore, I am fully convinced that under such circumstances, the impugned order should not be allowed to sustain because the proceedings, in question, are highly time-barred and as such this revision petition very richly deserves to be allowed in toto.