JUDGMENT : Chandra Kumar Rai, J. 1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Narain Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/ State, Mr. S.C. Verma & Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for private respondent no.4 and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no.3- Land Management Committee. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the lease for agricultural purpose was granted in favour of private respondents on 3.1.1991, which was approved also on 4.1.1991 in accordance with law. The proceedings for cancellation of the aforementioned lease was initiated after about 11 years i.e. on 17.6.2002 by one Ramdhari. In the aforementioned cancellation proceedings, an objection was filed on behalf of the contesting respondents/ allottees stating that the instant cancellation proceedings is barred by limitation as well as there was no illegality / irregularity in the execution of lease, as such, the cancellation proceeding at the instance of private parties is not maintainable. It is also mentioned in the objection that the allotment was made in accordance with law as provided under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The allotment made in favour of the private respondents were cancelled by Collector vide order dated 17.2.2003. Against the order dated 17.2.2003, revision was filed before the Commissioner on behalf of the private respondents, which was registered as Revision No.173 A of 2003, under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. Additional Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh vide order dated 25.1.2008 allowed the revision setting aside the order dated 17.2.2003. Against the order dated 25.1.2008, one restoration application was filed by private party in the year 2015, another restoration application was filed by State in the year 2016 and one private party has also filed a restoration application in the year 2018 against the order dated 25.1.2008 before the Commissioner. All the three sets of restoration applications were consolidated and heard together. Additional Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh vide order dated 28.8.2018 rejected all the three sets of restoration application and maintained the earlier order dated 25.1.2008. Against the order dated 28.8.2018 passed by Additional Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh rejecting the restoration application as well as order dated 25.1.2008, State has filed the revision, under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act before the Board of Revenue, which has been dismissed vide order dated 2.1.2019, hence this writ petition. 3. Against the order dated 28.8.2018 passed by Additional Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh rejecting the restoration application as well as order dated 25.1.2008, State has filed the revision, under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act before the Board of Revenue, which has been dismissed vide order dated 2.1.2019, hence this writ petition. 3. Stamp reporter has reported the laches of 1629 days in filing the writ petition. 4. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has explained the laches in paragraph no.12 of the writ petition as well as in the subsequent affidavit dated 12.12.2023 filed in the writ petition. 5. Mr. Jitendra Narain Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the lease executed in favour of private respondent were illegal as allottee were not entitled for allotment, as such, the cancellation proceeding was rightly initiated and the lease was rightly cancelled by the Collector. He further submitted that the order cancelling the lease has been illegally interfered with in revision by the Additional Commissioner, as such, restoration proceedings were initiated which were rejected in arbitrary manner. He further submitted that the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner as well as the Board of Revenue are illegal, as such, the same are liable to be set aside and order passed by the Collector be maintained. 6. On the other hand, Mr. S.C. Verma and Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent submitted that lease was executed in the year 1991 and cancellation proceeding has been initiated after 11 years, which is beyond the period prescribed under Section 198 (6) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. They further submitted that the cancellation proceeding has been initiated by the private respondents but Gaon Sabha & State has not filed any application for cancellation rather they appeared in the proceeding and supported the case of the persons who have applied for cancellation. They next submitted that limitation question has not been examined by the Collector while passing cryptic order by which the lease executed in the year 1991 has been cancelled in arbitrary manner. They also submitted that the revisional Court has rightly considered the matter and affirmed the lease granted in favour of the private respondents. They next submitted that limitation question has not been examined by the Collector while passing cryptic order by which the lease executed in the year 1991 has been cancelled in arbitrary manner. They also submitted that the revisional Court has rightly considered the matter and affirmed the lease granted in favour of the private respondents. They further submitted that against the order allowing the revision filed by private respondents, restoration proceedings were initiated after about 6 to 8 years by respective parties, which has been rejected by the Additional Commissioner in accordance with law. They further submitted that the earlier proceeding initiated by some other private parties for cancellation of lease deed dated 3.1.1991 has already been rejected, as such, successive proceeding cannot be initiated for the same lease in question. They further placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2018 (140) RD 1 (Rishi Pal & Others Vs. State of U.P. & Others) in order to demonstrate that the agricultural lease executed in favour of the lease holder cannot be cancelled beyond the period of limitation. They further submitted that the cancellation proceeding was initiated after 11 years, restoration application was filed before the Additional Commissioner after 6 to 11 and the instant petition has been filed after 4 years, which demonstrates that the authorities are abusing the process of law in order to harass the private respondents/ allottees. They next submitted that no interference is required in the matter and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that agricultural lease was granted in favour of the private respondents on 4.1.1991 and the instant cancellation proceedings were initiated on 17.6.2002. There is also no dispute about the fact that on the basis of the proceedings initiated in the year 2002, the lease has been cancelled by Collector in the year 2003 but in revision the order of Collector has been set aside and the lease granted in the favour of the petitioner has been affirmed. There is also no dispute about the fact that restoration applications filed after more than six years have been rejected and the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Board of Revenue in the year 2019. 9. There is also no dispute about the fact that restoration applications filed after more than six years have been rejected and the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Board of Revenue in the year 2019. 9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of Section 198 (6) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act will be relevant, which is as under: "(6) Every notice to show cause mentioned in sub-section (5) may be issued — (a) in the case of an allotment of land made before November 10, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the said date), before the expiry of a period of [seven years] from the said date; and (b) in the case of an allotment of land made on or after the said date, before the expiry of a period of [five years from the date of such allotment or lease or up to November 10, 1987, whichever be later]." 10. The provisions contained under Section 198 (6) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has been considered by this Court while deciding the case as mentioned above in Rishi Pal (Supra) in which it has been held that if the limitation question has not been raised before the Collector / Commissioner, even then the same can be raised for the first time before this Court as the limitation question goes to the root of the matter. The relevant paragraph of the judgment of Rishi Pal (supra) is as follows: "7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the orders dated 1.6.2011 and 23.3.2012 cannot be sustained and are to be quashed. 8. The pattas were executed in the year 1992. Under Sub-section (6) of Section 195 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, the complaint which was filed in the year 2003-04 was barred by limitation by almost six years. 9. Further, I hold that since the question of limitation goes to the very root of the matter, even though it was not agitated before the courts below, it can definitely be raised here in this Court. Section 3 of the Indian Limitation Act would also be relvant. 9. Further, I hold that since the question of limitation goes to the very root of the matter, even though it was not agitated before the courts below, it can definitely be raised here in this Court. Section 3 of the Indian Limitation Act would also be relvant. The same is being reproduced here as under: "Section 3.- Bar of limitation - (1) Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence. (2) For the purpose of this Act, - (a) A suit is instituted, - (i) in an ordinary case, when the plaint is presented to the proper officer; (ii) in the case of pauper, when his application for leave to sue as a pauper is made; and (iii) in the case of a claim against a company which is being wound up by the Court, when the claimant first sends in his claim to the official liquidator; (b) any claim by way of a set off or a counter-claim, shall be treated as a separate suit and shall be deemed to have been instituted - (i) in the case of a set off, on the same date as the suit in which the set off is pleaded; (ii) in the case of a counter-claim, on the date on which the counter-claim is made in Court; (c) an application by notice of motion in a High Court is made when the application is presented to the proper officer of that Court" 10. The question of limitation had to be therefore looked into by the Court even if he dendant /opposite party had not raised it. 11. Further, after the application which was filed by Hardas was dismissed for non prosecution then he alone could have filed the application for restoration. State was a party whose actions were being adjudicated upon in the complaint which was filed by Hardas. It could not therefore, have supported the restoration application of Hardas. 12. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The orders dated 1.6.2011 and 23.3.2012 are quashed. 13. It is made clear that this relief would be confined to the petitioners who had filed the instant writ petition." 11. It could not therefore, have supported the restoration application of Hardas. 12. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The orders dated 1.6.2011 and 23.3.2012 are quashed. 13. It is made clear that this relief would be confined to the petitioners who had filed the instant writ petition." 11. It is also material that some of the allottee have expired but without impleading the legal heirs, the instant cancellation proceeding has been initiated after about 11 years. It is also material that earlier cancellation proceeding initiated at the instance of the private party Birbal and others being Case No.410 was rejected by Collector vide order dated 10.1.2002. It is also material that one cancellation proceeding initiated at the instance of Lutawan is stated to be pending before this Court although counsel for the private respondent no.4 submitted writ petition has been dismissed on 23.11.2015 and lease of private respondent have already been affirmed. 12. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the initiation of the instant cancellation of lease proceeding after 11 years from the date of execution of agricultural lease in favour of private respondents is abuse of process of law and cannot permitted in the eye of law. 13. Considering the provisions contained under Section 198 (6) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as well as the ratio of law laid down by this Court in Rishi Pal (supra) , no interference is required in the matter. 14. The writ petition is misconceived and dismissed accordingly.