The main legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of asami leases under Rule 176A can be done by the Assistant Collector, and after determination, there is no necessity of filing a suit for ejectment under Section 202 of the Act. The court also emphasized the requirement of notice to the lessee before determining the lease under Rule 176A.

Ashok Bhushan, J.—The challenge in these writ petitions is to the action of the Sub-Divisional Officer by which the asami leases in favour of the petitioners have been cancelled and the names were also expunged from revenue records. All the cases raise similar question, hence are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the parties, the writ petitions are being finally decided.

3. Heard Sri A. P. Tiwari, Sri S. B. Singh, Sri. S. K. Shukla, Sri P. K. Tyagi, Smt. Archana Tyagi for the petitioners and Sri N. P. Pandey learned standing counsel appearing for the State.

4. For deciding all these writ petitions, it is sufficient to note facts of Writ Petition No. 15880 of 2004 and Writ Petition No. 18126 of 2004.

5. Writ Petition No. 15880 of 2004 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the orders dated 28th August, 1998 and 29th September, 1998. Order dated 28th August, 1998 is a letter written by Additional Collector (Administration) to the Sub-Divisional Officer requesting him to cancel all irregular entries. The letter states that Collector has directed for expunging the entries of asami leases. Order dated 29th September, 1998, is an order of Sub-Divisional Officer by which the Sub-Divisional Officer has approved as proposed the report of the revenue officials for expunging the name of the petitioner. Petitioner’s case in the writ petition is that petitioner is a lessee of plot Nos. 68 and 156 total area 0.911 from the year 1963 after the approval of Tahsildar. Petitioner’s case further is that name was also recorded in the khatauni on the basis of lease granted in his favour. Petitioner is continuing in possession and has been paying the land revenue. It is stated that on the basis of ex parte report submitted by Lekhpal, Deputy Collector has passed order dated 29th September, 1998, approving the report for cancellation of leases in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner’s case further is that leases were cancelled without any notice to the petitioner. It has further been stated that Sub-Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to cancel the lease. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents by Tahsildar. It has been stated in the counter-affidavit that power under Rule 176A of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) has been exercised by the Sub-Divisional Officer. It has further been stated that after cancellation of irregular entries of the petitioner, the land has been allotted by Land Management Committee in favour of other persons. It has further been stated that petitioner has also filed case for cancellation of the lease granted in favour of Vinod Kumar and others. In reply to paragraph 7 of the petition, in which petitioner has claimed grant of lease in the year 1963 with regard to plot Nos. 68 and 156, only this much has been stated that Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to approve the asami lease and an irregular entry in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled.

6. Writ Petition No. 18126 of 2004 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the order dated 24th March, 2004, passed by Additional Commissioner by which order the revision of the petitioner filed against the orders dated 24th February, 1994 and 19th October, 2002 have been dismissed. The Sub-Divisional Officer has passed order dated 24th February, 1994 in Case No. 124 of 1993-94 directing for cancellation of the asami lease in favour of the petitioner in exercise of jurisdiction under Rule 176A of the Rules. The order stated that petitioner is in possession as asami lessee of plot No. 256 since 1372 fasli and the lease being for a maximum period of 10 years, its period came to an end, hence in exercise of jurisdiction under Rule 176A of the Rules, the lease is being cancelled. The Sub-Divisional Officer forwarded the copy of the order to Tahsildar for making e