PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - (1.) RAISING a short controversy, the present writ petition has been filed. The present writ petition arises out of proceedings under section 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act which was initi­ated against the contesting respondents for cancellation of Patta. The Additional Collector, Mau passed an order dated 10.7.1990 cancelling the Patta. Against the said order, a revision being Revision No. 157/85-M/1992 was preferred by Viswa Nath. In the said revision, the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Gorakhpur Division Gorakhpur by the order dated 20.3.1996 referred the matter to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue in the said reference being Reference No. 84 of 1995-96 by his order dated 18.7.1997 accepted the reference on the ground that the impugned order was passed by the Additional Collector who had no authority, the order being without jurisdiction. The Board of Revenue set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector and directed the parties to appear before the Collector, Mau on the date fixed.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Brahm singh v. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad and there, 2008 (105) RD 1 word Collector including the Additional Collector, the order of the Board of Revenue is not legally correct. The learned Counsel for the respondents could not dispute the above legal propositions. This being so, the order of the Board of Revenue accepting the Reference on the ground that the initial order was passed by the Additional Collector and le said order is without jurisdiction is not legally correct. The order of the Board of Revenue is, therefore, set aside. However, le matter is remanded back to the Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad being Reference No. 84 of 1995-96 to rehear and redecide the Reference on the other questions.
(3.) IN the result the writ petition suceeds and is allowed. Petition Allowed.;