The court clarified that the power to determine leases under Rule 176a (2) could be exercised prospectively, even for existing leases, and emphasized the importance of evidence regarding notice and admissibility of reports.

( 1 ) HEARD counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) BY the consent of the parties counsels this writ petition is being finally decided at this stage without inviting counter-affidavit.

( 3 ) BY this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 12. 6. 2001, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Moradabad in Case No. 336 of 2001 and the order dated 18. 7. 2003, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Moradabad Division, moradabad, dismissing the Revision No. 62 of 2002-2003 filed by the petitioners under Section 333 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

( 4 ) PETITIONERS case as mentioned in the writ petition is that they were granted lease by the Gaon sabha in the year 1381f, and since then the petitioners are in possession of the land in dispute. Petitioners further alleged that they are regularly paying the rent and their names are also recorded in the records of rights, Petitioners have further claimed that they have become bhumidhars with non-transferable right. A report was submitted by the Tahsildar, Moradabad to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Moradabad, saying that the names of the petitioners are recorded in clause 3 and the period of lease of the petitioners has come to an end and further the petitioners have not followed the terms of the lease, hence their names be expunged. The Sub-Divisional officer after receipt of the report of Tahsildar registered a Case No. 336 of 2001 under Section 202 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act read with Rule 176a of the zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules. Notices were issued to the petitioners. The sub-Divisional Officer passed an order on 12. 6. 2001, accepting the report of the Tahsildar and directing expunction of the names of the petitioners from plot No. 580 area 0. 547 hectares and the land was directed to be recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha. Petitioners filed a revision before the Commissioner under Section 333 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms act. Petitioners case in the revision was that no notice was received by the petitioners in the aforesaid case. Petitioners have claimed that they have become bhumidhars with non-transferable right. Report of the Tahsildar was not proved by any evidence and was not admissible. Revisional court vide its order dated 18. 7. 2003, rejected the revision. The writ petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid two orders.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners challenging the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional officer and the Additional Commissioner raised following submissions :

(1) Rule 176a Sub-clause (2) having been substituted in the Rules subsequent to grant of lease in favour of the petitioners, the said Rule is not applicable and no action can be taken against the petitioners under the aforesaid Rule 176a Sub-clause (2) of the Zamindari Abolition and Land reforms Rules. (2) Petitioners did not receive any notice in Suit No. 336 of 2001 and the suit was decreed without giving any opportunity to the petitioners. (3) The report of the Tahsildar dated 12. 10. 2000, could not have been relied since Tahsildar was not examined nor the said report was proved.

( 6 ) LEARNED standing counsel appearing for the respondents contended that Rule 176a (2) of the zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules was fully applicable. He contended that the rule gives power to the Sub-Divisional Officer to determine a asami lease. Contention is that the power to determine the lease has validly been exercised under the said Rule which Rule is fully applicable when the power has been exercised. It has been submitted that the summons were issued to the petitioners hence the order cannot be said to be ex-parte. He further contended that the report of Tahsildar was submitted for exercising Jurisdiction under Rule 176a (2) of the zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules ; hence the same could have been very well relied upon by the Sub-Divisional O