Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) THE land in dispute appears to have been allotted by an auction in favour of Sarup Singh, Respondent No. 5. The Petitioner, Smt. Krishna Devi, applied before the Sub -Divisional Officer Under Rule 115 -N of the ZA and LR Rules for the cancellation of the allotment. The Sub -Divisional Officer allowed the application and cancelled the allotment. Aggrieved, Sarup Singh filed a revision. The Additional Commissioner referred it to the Board of Revenue with the recommendation that it should be allowed. The Board of Revenue on 15th October, 1969 passed an order allowing the revision and setting aside the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer.
(2.) THEREUPON , Smt. Krishna Devi instituted a writ petition in this Court. At the hearing of the writ petition it was urged on behalf of the Petitioner that the revision was not maintainable against the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer passed Under Rule 115 -N. In support, reliance was placed upon a decision of Broome, J. in the case of Kishan Lal Jat v. State of U.P., 1966 AWR 734. The learned Single Judge felt that this decision requires reconsideration. He accordingly referred the following question to a Division Bench: Whether a revision lies to the Board of Revenue Under Section 333 of the UP ZA and LR Act against the order of an Assistant Collector incharge of a sub -division (S.D.O.) passed Under Rule 115 -N of the UP ZA and LR Rules, setting aside an auction of an abadi site by the Land Management Committee. We have seen the decision in Kishan Lal's case. There Broome, J. held "A revision lies to the Board of Revenue Under Section 333 only against decisions of a subordinate court; and it cannot be said that the S.D.O. acting Under Rule 115 -N functions as a Court." The entire decision of the point is confined to this single terse sentence. The point has not been discussed and no reasons have been given. Under Section 333 of the ZA and LR Act a revision lies to the Board of Revenue in any suit or proceeding decided by any subordinate court in which either no appeal lies to it or, if an appeal lies, it has not been preferred.
(3.) SECTION 331 provides for institution of suits in courts mentioned in col. 4 of the Second Schedule. Sub -section (2) provides for an appeal against orders and decrees so passed to courts mentioned in col. 5 and Sub -section (4) provides for a second appeal from the final order or decree passed in appeal Under Sub -section (2) to the authority mentioned in col. 6. That authority is the Board of Revenue. It will thus be seen that the scheme of Section 331 read with the Second Schedule is for institution of suits in designated courts of original jurisdiction, from whose decrees or orders appeals lie to higher courts. This being the hierarchy of courts envisaged by the ZA and LR Act, it can, within the meaning of Section 333, be said that the courts of original jurisdiction given in col. 4 of the Second Schedule are courts subordinate to the courts of first appeal and courts of second appeal mentioned in cols. 5 and 6; and similarly, that the court of first appeal mentioned in col. 5 is subordinate to court of second appeal mentioned in col. 6 thereof. Col. 6 of the Schedule refers to the Board of Revenue while col. 5 mentions the Commissioner. Col. 4 dealing with the courts of original jurisdiction refers to several authorities like Assistant Collector, Assistant Collector, First Class, as well as the Assistant Collector in charge of a sub -division. In many entries, like entries Nos. 5, 11, 20, 20 -A, 30, 31, 35, 41 and 42, the court of original jurisdiction is the Assistant Collector in charge of a sub -division.;