Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—This petition questions the correctness of the impugned orders including the order dated 14.1.2008 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer and the order passed by Addl. Collector dated 31.5.2011 affirming the same arising out of summary proceedings of expunging the name of the petitioner from the land in dispute. The ground of challenge is that the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice in an administrative capacity and without applying mind to the facts of the case.

2. The claim of the petitioner is that the predecessor in interest of the petitioner namely Smt. Chhotti was the allottee of the land since the year 1973. The land was recorded as “Banjar”. The allotment is sought to be annulled by virtue of a summary order holding that the statutory period of lease has expired and, therefore, the petitioner cannot continue to hold over the land. It has been categorically recorded that the period is 5 years whereas the petitioner has continued for almost more than 3 decades without having any right, title or interest over the land in dispute.

3. Sri Srivastava relying heavily on the judgment in the case of Hari Ram v. Collector, District Saharanpur/Addl. Collector and others, 2004 (97) RD 360, submits that without following the procedure prescribed as provided for under Rule 176-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Rules, the petitioner could not have been evicted without determining the lease keeping in view the provisions of Section 194 (c) of the Act.

4. Sri Srivastava has invited the attention of the Court to the judgment aforesaid particularly paragraphs 17 to 26 to contend that having failed to follow the procedure prescribed in law, the authorities have committed a manifest illegality and hence the impugned order is vitiated. Further reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Ramdeo and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (4) ADJ 625, which judgment has also been cited by the learned Standing Counsel. Another decision in the case of Deoraj and others v. Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly, and others, 2010 (1) ADJ 669, has been brought to the notice of the Court to contend that no Suit having been filed under Section 202, the ejectment of the petitioner could not have been ordered in a summary fashion that too even in violation of principles of natural justice.

5. Replying to the said submissions, the learned Standing Counsel has invited the attention of the Court to the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Suchit and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2007 RD 435, and the latest decision in the case of Chhotti v. State of U.P. through District Magistrate, Bijnor and others, 2010 (109) RD 240 : 2010(8) ADJ 21 (NOC)(DB), to contend that the petitioner even before this Court, having failed to establish his title, is not entitled for getting a remand on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and the lease having been defined statutorily and fixed by law, the petitioner does not have any subsisting right to contest the matter. It is urged by the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner before this Court has failed to demonstrate the continuance of his lease or its survival and, therefore, the case of Hari Ram (supra) as relied upon would not come to the aid of the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the case of Hari Ram was decided on the facts as disclosed therein. He has particularly invited the attention of the Court to para 19 of the said decision to contend that in that case the tenure of the lease was presumed to be existing as it was not clear to the Court on the material on record as to whether the leases granted therein were for a fixed period or on the basis of year to year. Not only this, the said judgment related to a land as defined under Section 132 of the Act which is not the position in the present case and hence reliance on the said judgment is absolutely misplaced.

6. Having heard learned counsel