HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 1001041 of 2003 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J. 1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional CSC for the respondents - State. 2. Sri Arshad Rizvi, Advocate is appearing for private respondents, who have been served notice through whatsapp on 22.08.2025. In spite of that, he did not present himself, therefore, the court has no option but to decide the case. 3. The present writ petition has been filed on following prayer: "I) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 20.12.2002, 24.02.2003 passed by Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and 22.11.2002 passed by the Additional Collector, District Hardoi, contained in Annexure Nos.1, 2 & 3 to this petition. II) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned proceeding initiated under Section 198 (4) of the said Act by the Additional Collector, Hardoi in case No.175/126/2003 pending before him. III) issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just, fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, and Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Anuj Pandey, Arshad Rizvi, Katyayan Mishra, Mohammad Babar Khan Ramesh And Another U.P.Z.A. .....Petitioner(s) The Addl.Commissioner Lucknow And Others 9 .....Respondent(s) IV) allow the writ petition with costs." 4. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioners were granted lease vide resolution of land management committee on 24.12.1995 which was duly approved by the SDM on 15.02.1996. Since then, the petitioners are in possession over the land and in the revenue record name of the petitioners was mutated. 5. A complaint has been filed against grant of lease to the petitioners by moving an application under Section 198(4) of UP ZA&LR Act for cancellation of lease of the petitioners. Notices were issued on 04.04.2001 to the petitioners and in pursuance thereof, they filed an application for recall of the order on 04.04.2001 on the ground that notices have been issued beyond time. 6. The Additional Collector, Hardoi passed an order in case No.175/126/2003 by means of which claim setup by the petitioners was rejected against which the petitioners filed revision which has also been dismissed vide order dated 20.12.2002 against which the petitioners filed recall application, which has also been rejected vide order dated 24.02.2003. 7. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that they moved an application in the case that notice has been issued beyond time, therefore, the case is not permissible in the eyes of law. He submitted that Additional Collector without considering the reasons assigned in the application has rejected the claim setup by the petitioners. The revisional court also without any rational justification on suo motu proceeding has rejected the revision and the recall application filed thereon. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that both the orders are un-reasoned and without considering the material placed before both the authorities and there is no rational justification in not considering the grievances raised by the petitioners in the application, therefore, the orders impugned suffer from apparent illegality and are liable to be quashed. He submitted that the petitioners have not filed objection, therefore, he requested for grant of permission to file objection in regard to ground taken in the application. In support of his submissions, he WRIC No. 1001041 of 2003 2 placed reliance in the case of Jiya Ram and others Vs. State of U.P. through the Collector, Jalaun and others; 2012 (115) RD 372. 9. On the other hand, learned Additional CSC Sri S.P. Maurya vehementally opposed the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that there is no illegality in the order dated 22.11.2002, 20.12.2002 & 24.02.2003 and the orders are just and valid. 10. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. On perusal of order dated 22.11.2002, it is evident that the Additional Collector has not assigned any reason in passing the impugned order. Prima facie, it is apparent on record that notice was sent beyond five years, therefore, the Additional Collector was not amenable to pass the impugned order. 12. The revisional court has also committed manifest error of law in recording finding under suo motu proceeding in dismissing the revision and affirming the order passed by the Additional Collector vide order dated 20.12.2002. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners moved an application for recall of the order pointing out the illegality in the order but the same has also been rejected vide order dated 24.02.2003. 13. In the opinion of this Court, the objection filed by the petitioners in the shape of application would have been decided on merit. Due to non assigning of reasons, the orders impugned suffer from apparent illegality and are liable to be set aside. The revisional court cannot initiate suo motu proceeding without considering the gravity of the order passed by the Additional Collector. 14.Paragraph 6 of the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners is being quoted below: "The scheme of the act clearly provides that in case any proceeding has been initiated by the Assistant Collector either on a complaint or suo motu the period of limitation in both the case is circumscribed by section 198 (6). It does not make any distinction in respect of where the proceedings have been initiated on a complaint or by Collector suo motu. All the grounds available for cancellation of the lease or allotment are to be WRIC No. 1001041 of 2003 3 circumscribed by period of limitation provided therein. Power to cancel the lease under Section 198(4) of the Act does not carve out any special category which can be excluded from the purview of the limitation. The ground on which the lease of the petitioner is cancelled relates to non-approval granted by the Collector at the time of allotment. This can be a issue for the purpose of cancellation of allotment provided same can be raised within period of limitation provided under the Act. Once the period of limitation has expired the Collector cannot cancel the lease on the ground that there was no prior approval granted as contemplated by Section 195 of the Act." 15. On perusal of paragraph 6 of the aforesaid judgment, it is crystal clear that the lease cannot be cancelled on any ground if steps have been taken beyond time. 16. In view of reasons assigned above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 17. The impugned orders dated 20.12.2002, 24.02.2003 passed by Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and 22.11.2002 passed by the Additional Collector, District Hardoi, contained in Annexure Nos.1, 2 & 3 are hereby quashed. 18. However, it is provided that the petitioners are at liberty to file objection in regard to limitation before the Additional Collector, who shall consider and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. August 27, 2025 Adarsh K Singh WRIC No. 1001041 of 2003 4 (Irshad Ali,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADARSH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench