R.S.Singh, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the Board of Revenue dated 23-6-1976.
(2.) IT appears from the facts of the case that the Land Management Committee had made certain allotments in favour of Kamta Prasad and Har Prasad, respondent nos. 4 and 5 by auction on 15-4-1969 and 29-9-1970. Shiv Charan and Cheda Lal, the petitioners, filed an objection for cancellation of these allotments on the ground that they were not in accordance with rules and no auction took place at all. The Sub-Divisional Officer, before whom this objection was filed, after necessary enquiry found no irregularity in the allotments and rejected the objections of the petitioners. The petitioners filed a revision against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Addl. Commissioner, after hearing the parties, made a recommendation to the Board of Revenue for setting aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 17-2-1972 and for cancelling the aforesaid allotments. When the revision came before the Board of Revenue, the same was dismissed with the finding that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer cannot be deemed to be judicial in nature and no revision lay against it. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid order of the Board of Revenue in the present writ petition before this Court. The only point for consideration in this case is whether a revision lies to the Board of Revenue under Section 333 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) against the order of the Assistant Collector incharge of a sub-division (S. D. O.) passed under Rule 115-N of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules (hereinafter referred to as Rules). Rule 115-N (now Rule 115-H)gave power to the S. D. O. (now to the Collector) for cancellation of the allotment made by Land Management Committee in respect of the abadi site in case it is not in accordance with the rules made for making allotments. The power of revision is given under Section 333 of the Act. Section 333 is as follows :- "333. Power of Board to call for cases. -The Board may call for the record of any suit or proceeding decided by any .subordinate court in which no appeal lies, or when an appeal lies but has not been preferred, and if such subordinate court appears- (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law ; (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested ; or (c) to have acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity ; the Board may pass such order in the case as it thinks fit. According to this provision the Board of Revenue may call for the record of any suit or proceeding decided by any subordinate court on the conditions and grounds mentioned in Section 333 and may pass such orders in the case as it thinks fit. One of the requirements of Section 333 is that it should be a suit or proceeding decided by any subordinate court. In case it is not an order of a court, Section 333 will not be attracted. Therefore, according to the provision of Section 333 there should be a decision of the Court. In other words, it should be a judicial proceeding and not non-judicial one. In Kishan Lal Jat v. State of U.P., 1966 AWR 734 Mr. Justice Broome held that :- "A revision lies to the Board of Revenue u/Sec. 333 only against decisions of a subordinate court ; and it cannot be said that the SDO acting under Rule 115-N functions as a court." In this decision, the point in question has not been discussed and no reasons have been given. In Smt. Krishna Devi v. Board of Revenue, 1972 AWR 409 decision of Justice Broome (Supra) was shown and the learned single Judge held that this decision requires reconsideration. He accordingly referred the following question to the 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 in-charge of a Sub-Division (SDO) passed under Rule 113-N of the UP ZA & LR Rules, setting aside an auction of an abadi site by the Land Management Committee." The Division bench of this court has fully discussed this point whether Sub-Divisional Officer deciding a case of allotment of abadi site functions as a court and the decision given by him is judicial or non-judicial proceeding. Paragraph 9 of the Division Bench decision is as follow :- "It was urged that proceedings under Rule 115-N are non-judicial. In our opinion, the submission is misconceived. Under Rule 115-N, the Assistant Collector in-charge resolves a lis between two parties. In view of sub-section (3) he makes a 'decision' in the case. His decision is final. Under sub-Rule (iii) he has to hear the parties. Thereafter, he decides the case by a written order which records the reasons for the conclusions reached by him. Further, he can cancel the allotment only on grounds mentioned in sub-Rule (i). These various features leave no room for doubt that the Assistant Collector discharges judicial functions under Rule 115-N. These proceedings cannot possibly be held to be administrative in nature." In paragraph 10, the conclusion is given as follows :- "The proceedings under Rule 115-N being judicial in nature, and the Assistant Collector being a court subordinate to the Board of Revenue, a revision against his orders is maintainable."
(3.) THE Division Bench decision 1972 AWR 409 (Supra) was placed before the Board of Revenue yet it was held that the order of the Sub Divisional Officer cannot be deemed to be judicial and no revision lay against it. It appears that the subordinate courts are sometime in too much hurry in disposing of the cases without applying their mind to the provisions of law and the decisions of the High Court on the point. It is also that sometimes patent and obvious mistake is committed by the subordinate courts in not correctly interpreting the provisions of law and the decisions of the superior courts due to lack of sufficient experience and want of adequate knowledge. But such things can never be expected from the Board of Revenue, which is the highest revenue court of the State. The Members of the Board of Revenue are senior and experienced officers and are always expected while deciding revenue cases, to give judicial consideration and patient hearing. It is generally said that justice not only to be done but should also be shown to have been done. In other words, the defeated party should feel satisfaction that his case has been fully heard and properly decided. Hurried judgments and unsatisfactory decisions create bad impression and dissatisfaction in the minds of the litigants and this is one of the reasons of unnecessary litigation in appellate and revisional courts and thereby increasing arrears in the superior courts.;