RAGHUBIR 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 30-10-1993 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi in revision petition No. 163/343 of 1991-92/Lalitpur, arising out of the order dated 30-4-1992 passed by the learned trial Court in proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that on the tehsil report, suo-moto proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act for the cancellation of the lease granted in favour of Reghubir etc., were initiated against the allottees concerned on the ground of irregular allotment. On notice, proceedings were contested by the allottees, concerned, denying the allegations and inter-alia pleading that since the lease in question, was granted validly to them and the notice issued is time-barred, the same is liable to be discharged. Thereafter, the allottee, concerned did not lead the evidence in their support despite due opportunity afforded to them, while the statement of the Lekhpal concerned was recorded on behalf of the State. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite formalities, cancelled the allotment in question, vide its order, dated 30-4-1992, vesting the land in dispute in the Gaon Sabha, concerned. Aggrieved by this order, Reghubir etc. went up in revision before the learned Additional Commissioner, who has dismissed the same vide his judgment and order, dated 30- 10-1993 and therefore, it is against these orders that the instant revision petition has been preferred by Raghubir etc. 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. As a matter of fact, the lease in question was granted to the revisionist in the year 1965, while the show cause notice was issued to the allottees, concerned on 14-2-1991. As per the provisions of UP Land Laws (Amendment) Act No. XXIV of 1986, the proceedings are barred ab-initio by limitation under Section 198(6)(a) of the Act. Moreover, as per the provisions of clause (d) of Section 198(1), effective upto 28-9-1970, a lease could be granted to 'any other person' and therefore, residence of the allottee, concerned outside the circle cannot be made a ground for the cancellation of the same. There is nothing on the record to show that the lease, in question, has been granted to the revisionist, at the cost of other lndless agricultural labourers, residing in the circle. This is rather a settled principle of law, enunciated in the case law, reported in 1991 RD 56. It is also pertinent to mention here that the land, held by father cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be clubbed together with the land, held by the allottee, concerned and therefore, this also cannot be made a ground for the cancellation of the lease. This view finds support from the dictum of law, enunciated in the case-law reported in 2003 ALR 265 DB (HC). The learned Courts below, in fact, have not dealt with the matter, in question in correct perspective of law, but have rather swayed away on flimsy grounds and therefore, the cancellation of the lease in question cannot at any stretch of imagination, be catagorised as justified in the eyes of law and as such, the impugned orders rendered by them cannot be sustained in law.