AMAR SINGH Vs. RAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Yadav, J. These three references have been made by the learned Commissioner, Bareilly Division, to set aside the order dated 16-6-94 passed by the Additional Collector, Shahjahanpur arising out of the proceedings under Section 198 (4) of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act. As all the three matters are connected with each other and they are in respect of the same plots and between the same parties and they have been decided by the trial Court by a common order dated 16-6-94 and as such, they are consolidated and the reference No. 24 of 95-96 Shahjahanpur, shall be the leading file.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that the proceedings under Section 198 (4), Z. A. & L. R. Act were initiated in respect of the plots No. 1213, 1232, 1336m, 2107, 1114, 1116, 1109, 1109/3,1130/1, 924, 1047, 1048, 2219, 2223, 653, 2101, 1132, 1130, 1323, 823,1429, 1109, 400, 2240, 2241 etc. situate at village Dariyuri, pergana and tehsil Puwayan, District Shahjahanpur on the grounds that the lease granted in favour of Allottees on 20-7-67 were not in accordance with law; which was heard and decided in accordance with the then prevalent law by the SDO, Puwayan, District Shahjahanpur, vide the order dated 5-9-1968 whereby the leases found to be illegal and stood cancelled. In the meantime consolidation proceedings intervened and the matter of entry came before the consolidation authority and by the order dated 19-8-70 the consolidation officer Puwayan, strucked off the entries repect of the said plots. The Consolidation Officers order being challenged before the Settlement Officer Consolidation which stood confirmed by dismissing the appeal, vide the order dated 14-7-71 and the same being challenged before the DDC stood also confirmed by dismissing the revision vide the order dated 20-1-72. In compliance of those orders passed by the consolidation authorities ultimately the plots in question were recorded as naveen parti and in between these parties the plots were allotted to one Ram Lal. Sadhu Singh and others tried to get injunction in respect of the said allotment to Ram Lal in the civil Court and their injunction application also stood dismissed by the Civil Court on 8-4-81. The order passed by the SDO. Puwayan, District Shahjahanpur on 5-9-68 stood challenged before the Commissioner, Bareilly which was heard and decided vide the Additional Commissioner's order dated 12-8-80 whereby the matter was remanded with certain directions. In the compliance of the said order the Additional Commissioner, Shahjahanpur, by its order dated 31-12-81 decided the matter which stood challenged before the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, again wherein the Additional Commissioner made a reference to Board of Revenue on 30-7-82 and the same stood remanded by the order dated 31-10-84 with the directions to implead the LMC as party by issuing show cause notices. It is in complaince of the order dated 31-10-84 passed by the Board, the Additional Commissioner, Shahjahanpur proceeded with the matter and cancelled the leases in question vide the order dated 16- 6-94. The order dated 16-6-94 stood again challenged before the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, wherein the aforesaid recommendation dated 17-10-95 has been made by the learned Additional Commissioner for remanding the entire case to the trial Court to take evidence etc. . Hence, these references before this Court.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on file I find both the Courts below have gone in detail and have touched the entire points involved in the matter in a very carefull manner and their orders are specific to the points. The order dated 5-9-98 passed by the trial Court is also on the point wherein the leases granted in favour of Sadhu Singh and others were found to be totally illegal. In view of the observations made by the Hon'ble High Court in 1995 ACJ 1313 I do not think it fit to discuss other points involved in the matter. The above citation is with regard to jurisdiction of the trial Court wherein it is only the Collector of the District who has jurisdiction to enquire into the matter under Section 198 (4) of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act. In the instant case the enquiry has been conducted and completed by the Additional Collector, Shahjahanpur which is without jurisdiction. Enquiry without jurisdiction is no enquiry in the eye of law. The learned Additional Commissioner has also recommended for remanding the matter to the trial Court which is liable to be accepted, and in view of Hon'ble High Court's observation made in 1995 ACJ 1313 the order of Additional Collector deserves to be set aside. In view of the above, the reference is accepted, the revision is allowed, the order dated 16-6-94 passed by the Additional Collector is set aside and the whole matter is sent back to Collector, Shahjahanpur to enquire into the matter in accordance with law after hearing to the parties concerned. Let a copy of this order be placed on the Revision Nos. 30 and 32 of 95-96 Shahjahanpur also. Revision allowed. .