Shabihul Hasnain, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, for quite some time. With his usual eloquence Mr. Mohd. Arif Khan assisted the Court with number of case laws including the judgment in Ram Dhani Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. reported in, 1986 RD 374 and several other judgments distinguishing the powers of the Collector viz a viz Assistant Collector I -Class. He has also referred the decision of full bench of this Court and has successfully established that under Section 15 -A of the U.P. Bhudan Yagna Act, 1952, power of cancellation of Patta granted by Bhudan Yagya Samiti, solely lies with the Collector and it cannot be sub -delegated. The definition of Collector given in U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act will not be applicable here. That definition is for the particular Act if not all pervasive and all inclusive. Without specific orders the delegation of powers to the Assistant Collector shall not be automatic. It is accepted by the learned standing counsel that in present case Assistant Collector shall have no jurisdiction to cancel a valid patta granted under the Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Act.
(2.) HOWEVER , learned standing counsel says that the Sub Divisional Officer has got jurisdiction to decide the proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and he says that the impugned order has been passed under the said Section. He further argues that if the genesis of the entry is based on fraud, the subsequent correction can be made at any level. However, in the present case, earlier an order was passed ex -parte but later on, when the recall application was moved, the Petitioner was allowed opportunity of hearing. Mr. Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate, has forcefully argued that in the concerned areas notification under Section 52 has already been issued. Right from the day of notification of consolidation in the area, no objection was ever filed under Section 9, till the notification of Section 52 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. Nobody has come forward and put his claim over the said land. In such a situation, he says that the entries stand fortified by the consolidation proceedings and such long standing entries cannot be corrected in a proceedings under Sections 33/39 being barred by Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
(3.) HOWEVER , Sri G.S. Misra, learned standing counsel says under the consolidation proceedings, it was not incumbent upon the State to file objections on the government land as the consolidation proceedings relate to the land belonging to the tenure holder and the land of the State is exempted from the consolidation.;