SHEORAJ 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 2-9-1983, passed by the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur in case No. 136 under Section 198(4) of the Act, cancelling the lease in question.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts, giving rise to the instant revision petition are that on the basis of the tehsil report, suo moto proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act were initiated against the revisionist for the cancellation of the lease, granted in his favour, on the ground of irregular allotment. On notice, the revisionist did not appear as the same was not served upon him personally. The learned trial Court, vide its order, dated 2-9-1983, cancellled the lease in question and vested the land in dispute in the Gaon Sabha, concerned and therefore, it is against his order that the instant revision petition has been preferred by the revisionist before the Board.

(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the arguments, advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also scanned the record on file. As a matter of fact, the show cause notice was issued to the revisionist under the signatures of the peshkar/ARA to the Additional Collector, Concerned, which clearly renders the entire proceedings void ab initio, in view of the provisions of Section 198 (4) of the Act, providing for issuance of such notice under the signatures of the Collector, concerned. It is also evident from a bare perusal of the provisions of Section 198(6) of the Act that such a notice cannot now be issued as the limitation for the same has since been expired in November, 1987, in view of the fact that the lease, in question, was granted to the revisionist in the year 1973, As a matter of fact, as per the existing settled principle of law enunciated in the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, in writ petition No. 38525 of 1996, the subsequent lessees cannot claim any right against the earlier allottee. So far as the maintainability of this revision petition is concerned, the same is, no doubt, maintainable, as there is concurrent jurisdiction of the Commissioner and the Board, as a result of which a second revision is strictly prohibited, in law, in view of the provisions of the U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1997 and therefore, as per the case law, cited, a revision once admitted by the Board, has to be decided finally by itself. The view of the learned trial Court that the revisionist is not a resident of the village, concerned nor was he willing to contest the proceedings, is also without any basis, as the so called show cause notice was not served upon him personally. It was merely reported that he had gone out of the village which does not in any way indicate that he is not a resident of the same. As already stated above, since the entire proceeding are void ab initio, the impugned order cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be allowed to sustain in law.