Ashok Bhushan - (1.)-Heard Sri K. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel.
(2.)BY this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 5.6.2006 passed by the Collector, Mainpuri cancelling the agricultural leases granted in favour of the petitioners and the order of the revisional court dated 21.1.2008 dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners.
Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are : an application under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 was filed by respondent No. 4 on 3/4.8.1987 praying for cancellation of lease dated 29.1.1982 in favour of the petitioners. The application was dismissed due to non-prosecution on 18.1.1990. The Additional Collector subsequently on 28.8.1997 passed an order in favour of the applicant against which revision was filed by the petitioners, which was allowed on 30.7.2001 and the matter was remitted to the Collector for passing fresh order. The Collector on 5.6.2006 after hearing the parties allowed the application and cancelled the leases granted to the petitioners. Prior to passing of the said order dated 5.6.2006 an application was also filed by the petitioner dated 11.5.2006 stating that no show cause notice has been issued in the case till 10th November, 1987, hence the application is barred by time and the application should be dismissed on the ground of delay alone. Against the order cancelling the lease, a revision was filed by the petitioners, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 21.1.2008.

Sri K.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners, challenging the order impugned, contended that the application was barred by time, hence could not have been allowed by the Collector. Two alternative submissions have been raised by counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention that application is barred by time, firstly that limitation for filing an application under Section 198 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 is only six months and the lease having been granted on 29.1.1982, the application filed on 3/4 August, 1987 was barred by time. Secondly, it is contended that under Section 198 (6) of the Act a show cause notice is required to be issued within the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 198 (6) and in the present case no notice having been issued, the application ought to have been rejected. Lastly it has been contended that application having been dismissed in default on 18.1.1990, the Collector could not have proceeded to decide the case on merits without recalling the said order.

(3.)I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
There is no dispute that lease was dated 29.1.1982 and the application was filed on 3/4 August, 1987. For the submission that limitation for filing the application under Section 198 is six months, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Serial Nos. 24 and 24A of Appendix-III of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules Act, 1952. From a perusal of Appendix-III Serial No. 24 and 24A, it is clear that so far as Serial No. 24 is concerned Section 198 (2) has been deleted by U.P. Act No. XXX of 1975 and in Serial No. 24A the application contemplated is a suit to establish right claimed in the land allotted under sub-section (1) of Section 198 and the limitation begins to run from the date when the order of ejectment becomes known to the plaintiff. The present is not a case where the applicant who filed the application for cancellation of lease claimed that he is going to be ejected. In view of the above, serial No. 24A is thus not attracted in the facts of the present case.