JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. By this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 20.12.2007, passed by the revisional Court as well as the orders dated 4.10.2007 and 31.5.2000 passed by the Collector.
2. The petitioners filed an application under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 praying for cancellation of a lease. The said application was dismissed for non prosecution on 31.5.2000. The petitioners filed an application seeking recall of the order dated 31.5.2000 which was again dismissed in default on 7.3.2006. Again the petitioners moved an application seeking recall on 25.7.2007, which has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 4.10.2007. The petitioners filed a revision which has been dismissed vide order dated 20.12.2007.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners challenging the impugned orders contended that the Collector ought to have suo moto restored the application since the petitioner had challenged the allotment. It has further been contended that the Collector could not have dismissed the application for default and he was under an obligation to inquire and decide it on merit in view of the provisions of Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
4. In so far as the first submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners is concerned, the Collector having not found the sufficient ground to recall the order, refused to recall the order dated 31.5.2007. The Collector has recorded finding in the order dated 4.10.2007 to the effect that the petitioners' earlier application was dismissed before the order dated 7.3.2006. After more than one year again an application was filed which was dismissed on 4.10.2007. No error has been committed by the Collector in rejecting the application dated 25.7.2007, which was filed after more than one year when earlier application was rejected. The revisional Court did not admit the revision having not found merit in the case. The petitioners having not prosecuted their application, the Collector did not found good ground to recall the order. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has sought to submit that there was certain compromise due to which the petitioners did not pursue the matter. Be that as it may, the petitioners did not bonafide pursue their application hence, no error has been committed by the Collector in rejecting the application.
5. The second submission of the leaned Counsel for the petitioners is that under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, the Collector is bound to inquire into the allotment when the application is filed. Section 198(4) is being quoted herein below:
198(4) The Collector may of his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment of land inquire in the manner prescribed into such allotment and if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular, he may cancel the allotment and the lease, if any.
6. The scheme of Section 198(4) is that Collector on his own motion can inquire allotment of land and on the application of any person aggrieved shall proceed to inquire the allotment and if he is satisfied, shall cancel the allotment. Section 198(4) empowers the Collector to suo-moto exercise his powers. The second clause of the said section requires the Collector that when an application is filed, he shall proceed to inquire the matter. The object and intent of the provision is that suomoto exercise of the power is on the discretion of the Collector, whereas when an application is filed there is no discretion left and the application has to be inquired. Section 198(4) cannot be interpreted in the manner that even if the applicant does not prosecute, still the Collector is under an obligation to decide the application on merit. The object and intent is that whenever an application is filed, the Collector shall proceed to inquire. The Legislature never intended in providing under Sub-section (4) of Section 198 that even if the application is not pressed or not prosecuted, the Collector will proceed to decide and inquire the matter on merits. Section 198(4) contains both suomoto exercise of power and exercise of power on an application. Word "shall" which has been used in Sub-section (4) of Section 198 is used in contradiction to exercise of power sumoto. The word "shall" has been used in the above manner to highlight that whenever an application is filed, the Collector has to necessarily proceed and decide on merits which however, is to be read with a caveat that if the application is not prosecuted, it is no more obligatory to decide on merits. The present is a case where the applicants themselves are not prosecuting their application.
7. Thus, the second submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner that it was obligatory on the part of the Collector to inquire into the matter despite application not being prosecuted, cannot be accepted. In view of the foregoing discussions, the writ petition is dismissed.