SOBARAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) preferred against the judgment and order, dated 13-5- 1997 passed by the learned Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi in Revision No. 20 of 1996-97/Lalitpur, dismissing the same and confirming the judgment and order, dated 1-11-1996 passed by the learned trial Court on the restoration application in proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise the instant revision petition are that the learned trial Court cancelled the lease in question on 24-10-1979. A restoration Application was filed against the aforesaid order and the same was rejected by the learned trial Court on 1-11-1996. Thereafter, a revision was preferred before the learned Commissioner concerned and the same was dismissed on 13-5-1997. Hence, this second revision petition.

(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also scanned the relevant records on file. A bare perusal of the record on file clearly reveals that the aforesaid show cause notice was issued by the Reader to the Collector concerned and not by the Collector himself as required by law. In the circumstances, this has rendered the entire proceedings vitiated ab-initio in law. I find much force in the contentions of the learned Counsel for the revisionist. On examination of the record on file, it is amply clear that now in the instant case, there arises no question to remand the case to the learned trial Court for decision afresh as the lease in question has been granted in the Year 1966 and as such the limitation for issuance of a show cause notice has already expired on November 10, 1987.