Dadhibal vs Vindhyachal

S. R. Yadav, Member.

This is a revision against the order dated 231295 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, arising out of the proceedings under Section 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, Decided by the learned Additional Collector, Mau, vide the order dated 3032001 .

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant papers on file.

The learned Counsel for the revisionist mainly submitted that the application of Vindhyachal being defective as the LMC was not made party should be rejected ; that in the instant case the show cause notices have also not been issued and that the complainant was not an aggrieved person. In reply, it is submitted that the lease in question is fictitious and the land was not vacant and that the orders passed by the learned Courts below are just and proper.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties it appears that the lease for agricultural purposes was executed in respect of plots No. 369/370 and 467/423 situate in village Hakikatpur, pergana and Tahsil Maunath Bhanjan, District Mau ; the tahsil report was obtained. One Vindhyachal moved an application for cancellation of the leases with the allegation that the same were granted in favour of a member of the LMC without obtaining the required permission. The learned trial Court after taking evidence concluded that the application has force and hence the lease were cancelled on 30391. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order a revision was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner Gorakhpur Division, also dismissed the revision by the order dated 231295. Aggrieved by the above said orders the parties have come up before the Board.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that the LMC has not been imp leaded as party as such, the application being defective should have been dismissed. It is the LMC which supervisor and maintains the Gaon Sabha land ; hence it is mandatory for any proceeding that the LMC should be arrprayed as party in such proceeding ; apparently this has not been done in the matter. It is also clear that before cancelling the lease in question the leaseholders have not been issued even show cause notices which is against the principle of natural justice as well as against the provisions Laid down for the same.

In the said circumstances I find that while making the enquiry in the trial Court apparent illegality has been committed in the same, has neither been discussed nor any finding has been recorded by the learned Additional Commissioner in the order dated 231295. Though it appears from the order, the points were raised before the learned Additional Commissioner also ; hence I am unable to uphold the orders passed by the learned Courts below. However, the cancellation of the leases involve the validity or invalidity and regularity or irregularity committed in the grant of the same or not. Hence, the same should be scrutinised after imp leading the LMC as party and issuing the show cause notices to the parties lacesholders.

In the result, the revision is allowed, the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below are hereby set aside and the while matter is remanded to the learned Collector, Mau, for decision afresh on merits and in the light of observations made above, after hearing both the parties. Revision allowed.