Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) THIS special appeal arises out of proceedings for the cancellation of a Bhumidhari Sanad.
(2.) A Sanad was granted in favour of the Respondent first set on 30th November, 1953. The Appellant made an application for cancellation of the Sanad on 10th December, 1953. The Asstt. Collector allowed this application and cancelled the sanad by an order passed on 30th November, 1954. This order was affirmed on appeal by the Addl. Commr. and in second appeal by the Board of Revenue. All these revenue authorities have concurrently held that the sanad had been obtained by practising fraud. The Respondents filed a writ petition in this Court which has been allowed by a learned Single Judge. It was held that by virtue of the amendment introduced by UP Land Reforms (Amendment) Act No. XX of 1954 which came into force on 10th October, 1954 only an Asstt. Collector of the first class has jurisdiction to cancel a Bhumidhari Sanad. In the present case the Sanad was cancelled by an Asstt. Collector of the 2nd class. The Learned Single Judge has held that such an Asstt. Collector of the 2nd class has no jurisdiction to cancel the Sanad and the order of cancellation of the Sanad was without jurisdiction and void. He repelled the submission that in view of the finding of fraud this was not a fit case for exercise of discretionary power Under Article 226 of the Constitution, by holding that the appellate orders of the Addl. Commr. and the Board of Revenue invariably sustained the finding of fraud on evidence recorded by an officer who had no jurisdiction to decide the case for cancellation. On this finding the writ petition succeeded and the orders of the revenue authorities were quashed and it was directed that the application for cancellation of Sanad be adjudicated afresh by a proper officer.
(3.) TILL 10th October, 1954 an Asstt. Collector of the 2nd class had jurisdiction to entertain and decide an application for cancellation of a Sanad. With effect from that day however the jurisdiction became vested in the Asstt. Collector 1st class learned Counsel for the Respondents was not able to point out any material on the record of the writ petition to support the view of the learned Single Judge that the evidence was recorded by the Asstt. Collector of the 2nd class after 10th October, 1954, the date when he lost jurisdiction over the case.;