GANPATI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order dated 30-3-1998 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad (sic) Division, arising out of proceedings under Section 198(4) of Z.A. and L.R. Act, heard and decided, vide the order dated 15-11-1997 passed by the Additional Collector, Pratapgarh.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that on an application moved by Ram Kumar Singh and others on 9-8-1990 proceedings for cancellation of leases executed on 18-1-1976 in respect of Plot No. 432A/3-6-7 situate at village Majhilaha, Pergana and Tahsil Sadar, District Pratapgarh, started, wherein notices were issued to other side vide the impugned order mentioned above, the Additional Collector, Pratapgarh dismissed the application treating it as time barred. Aggrieved by the Additional Collector's order a revision was preferred before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, which has been heard and decided by the Additional Commissioner on 30-3-1998 whereby the entire matter has been remanded to Collector, Pratapgarh, to take evidences and pass an order with regard to Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, which is under challenge before the Board and is being heard by this Court.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the revisionist mainly attracted my attention towards the dates on which the lease in question was executed and the application for cancellation in respect thereof was moved and by way of submissions it has been stressed upon before me that the application being time barred it has rightly been rejected by the trial Court while dealing with the matter the learned Additional Commissioner erred in law as such, the order of Additional Commissioner should not be sustained. He further attracted my attention towards the provision of Section 198(6) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. In reply, it is contended that the amaldaramad made in respect of the lease was of 1989 as such the cause of action arose after the said amaldaramad, hence the application being dated 9-8-1990 could not be termed as the time barred, that the land in dispute was an abadi covered with trees as such, the same ought not to have been allotted for agricultural purposes and that the lease was forged and fabricated one as such, for those leases no limitation should be counted and in this respect the learned Counsel for the otherside has relied upon the case law reported in 1994 RD 540.