JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.11.2016 passed by the Additional District Magistrate/ Collector Sitapur in Suit No.D2016106400525 and also the order dated 08.09.2020 passed in Revision No.C201610002485, by Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been allotted a part of Gata No.464/0.405 hectare for cultivation in 1995 as he did not have 3.120 acre agricultural land in the village concerned and fell within the eligibility criteria, on the basis of the Resolution passed by the Gaon Sabha under Section 122 B (4) (F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, in Case No.25; decided on 15.03,1995 by Sub-Divisional Magistrate Mishrikh, Sitapur. The said land was recorded as 'Pashuchar' or public utility land but was never used as 'Pashuchar'. The name of the petitioner was recorded in the khatauni by an order dated 26.04.1995 and on 31.12.2005, the Sub-Divisional Officer taking into account the Government Order dated 14.09.1995, had passed an order giving transferable right to the petitioner. The name of the petitioner was recorded in the revenue record in plot no.464/0.405 hectare and the petitioner has been cultivating the same till date. After a lapse of more than 21 years, the respondent no.2 had issued a notice under Section 128 (1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2016 on 09.08.2016. A copy of such notice has been annexed as annexure-8 to the writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that such an action of issuing notice was without jurisdiction as it was beyond the limitation prescribed under the Act and the Rules. The petitioner filed his objections saying that the proceedings are not maintainable in view of the Section 128 (1-A) of the U.P. Revenue Code.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 128 (1-A) which came into force on 11.03.2016, a limitation is provided but the petitioner was granted lease under Section 122 B (4) (F) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act on 26.04.1995, and therefore, the proceedings were barred by limitation. The Additional Collector issued notices to the petitioner for filing of the objections of the petitioner. The case was registered as Case No.D2016106400525: State Vs. Ram Prasad. The objections filed by the petitioner with regard to the limitation were not considered but the Additional Collector on the basis of false report by the revenue officials cancelled the lease granted to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed Revision before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) bearing Revision No.C201610002485 and notice was issued. Later on the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) without taking into account the limitation under Act to initiate such proceedings, has rejected the Revision by the impugned order dated 08.09.2020.

6. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the State Government had issued a letter dated 14.09.1995 directing the authorities to grant lease to poor scheduled caste category villagers under Section 122 B(4)(F) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, who had agricultural land below 3.25 acres in the village concerned and had been continuing in possession of more than ten years. In this case, the petitioner was in possession of the land in question since 1985, therefore, his case was considered and he was granted lease. The petitioner has planted 18 mango trees, 5 neem trees, 10 goolar trees, 3 jamun trees, 15 shisham trees and 9 chandi trees and total of 94 trees which are standing in the land in question and he has sown the crop of sugarcane also.

7. It has also been argued that the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss in case this Court does not interfere in the orders impugned to save his possession.

8. Sri Ratnesh Agnihotri, learned Standing Counsel, has pointed out the order initially passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 15.03.1995 allegedly under Section 122 B (4) (F) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. He states that the Su