IMPORTANT POINT
Cancellation of lease proceedings initiated after the statutory limitation period is invalid and cannot be sustained in law.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shyam Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was allotted lease of the surplus land declared under Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1976 hereinafter referred as Ceiling Act. The proceeding for cancellation under Section 27 (4) of the Ceiling Act has been initiated by the State in the year 1994 and by ex-parte order dated 13.10.1995, the lease of the petitioner has been cancelled. Petitioner filed restoration application against the order dated 13.10.1995. The aforementioned restoration application was dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 4.4.2003 hence this writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for the following reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 4.4.2003 passed by respondent no.2 and the order dated 13.10.1995 passed by respondent no.3.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute."

3. This Court entertained the matter on 22.5.2003 and passed the following interim order:-

"Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents prays for and is allowed one month's time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

List in first week of August, 2003.

In the meantime, the petitioner if not already dispossessed in pursuance of the order dated 13.10.1995 as confirmed by order dated 4.4.2003, shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute."

4. No counter affidavit has been filed by State in spite of the time granted by this Court on 22.5.2003.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was granted lease in the year 1976 in respect to the land which was declared surplus in the ceiling proceeding. He further submitted that proceeding for cancellation has been initiated in the year 1994 which is barred by the provisions contained under Section 27 (6) of the Ceiling Act. He submitted that the ground of cancellation is also misconceived, as such, the impugned order passed by Commissioner cancelling the petitioner's lease is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that restoration application filed by petitioner has also been dismissed in arbitrary manner. He placed reliance upon the judgement of this Court reported in 2006 (2) ADJ 155 (All) Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another in order to demonstrate that cancellation proceeding under Section 27 (4) of the Ceiling Act cannot be initiated after the prescribed period of limitation as provided under Section 27 (6) of the Ceiling Act.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Shyam Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order. He further submitted that the ground for cancellation is mentioned in the order, as such, no interference is required in the matter. He further submitted that order for cancellation was passed in the year 1995 and the highly time barred restoration application has been filed by the petitioner which has rightly been dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 4.4.2003. He submitted that no interference is required in the matter and writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

8. There is no dispute about the fact that petitioner was granted lease in the year 1976 in respect to the land which has been declared surplus under the Ceiling Act. There is also no dispute about the fact that proceeding for cancellation has been initiated after the prescribed period of limitation as provided under Section 27 (6) of the Ceiling Act and under the impugned order, petitioner's lease has been cancelled.

9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the