KRISHNA MURARI,J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 5. Notice on behalf of respondent No. 6 has been accepted by Sri Anuj Ku­mar.
(2.) IN view of the peculiar facts and circumstances and the order proposed to be passed hereunder, the respondents Nos. 7 to 20 are not being put to notice. However, their rights to seek clarification/modifica­tion/variation in the order, if so aggrieved, are being kept reserved. Petitioners claim to have been al­lotted land by the land management committed. On a complaint made by re­spondents allotment has been cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sikandrabad, Bulandshahr vide order dated 4.1.2008 and the revision filed against the said order has also been dismissed.
(3.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that after amendment by U. P. Act No. 27 of 2004 in section 198 (4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abo­lition and Land Reforms Act (for short the 'Act'), it is only the Collector, who is em­powered to cancel the least and thus the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magis­trate is without jurisdiction. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Brahm Singh v. Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad 2008 (105 RD 1 has held that Collector includes only Additional Collector and the power under section 198 (4) of the Act can be exercised only by the Collector or Additional Collector. In view of the provisions of section 198 (4) and the Full Bench decision in the case of Brahm Singh v. Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad (supra), there is force in the argument and the impugned order dated 4.1.2008 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. The Revisional Court having failed to consider this aspect of the matter, the revisional or­der also becomes unsustainable.;