T.S.Misra, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was granted a lease of plots in question by the Gaon Sabha, Deoli on 2nd October, 1963. He came in possession of the said land and paid rent thereof. However, on 30th November 1971 Mohsin Raza, the opposite party no. 4 filed an application before the Collector, Pratapgarh for cancellation of that lease on the ground that it was illegal. He prayed that suo motu action be taken by the Collector and the lease be cancelled. THE Collector sent that application to the Tahsildar for lnquiry and report. THE Tahsildar made an inquiry and submitted a report to the Sub-Divisional Officer with his opinion that the lease had been given against the rules and that it should be cancelled. THE Sub-Divisional Officer took evidence of the parties and by his order dated 23rd October, 19,73 cancelled the lease granted by the Land Management Committee. Saeeduddin then filed a revision against that order. THE Additional Commissioner recommended that the revision be allowed and the order of the trial court be set aside. THE Board of Revenue, however, disagreed with the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner and dismissed the revision petition. Saeeduddin has preferred the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the quashing of the order of the Board of Revenue and also of the Sub-Divisional Officer. He has also asked for a writ in the nature of mandamus that his possession be not interfered with. THE petition has been opposed.
(2.) FOR the petitioner it was urged that by reason of the provisions of section 198 as substituted by the Amendment Act no. 35 of 1970 the Collector of the district alone had the jurisdiction to cancel the lease in question and that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction and authority to do so. The Board of Revenue had referred to the provisions of Sec. 198 as amended by U. P. Act No. 4 of 1969 and had held that in view of section 23 of the Amendment Act the Assistant Collector continued to have the jurisdiction to take suo motu action for cancellation of a lease granted by the Land Management Committee. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that section 198 was further amended by the Amendment Act no. 35 of 1970 and as there was no provision in that Act of 1970 retaining the power of the Assistant Collector to deal with a lease granted in the year 1963, the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was without jurisdiction. No doubt, by section 23 of the U. P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1969 the jurisdiction to make inquiry and pass orders under sub-section (2) of Sec. 198 in relation to allotments referred to in sub-section (1) made prior to the 28th of June, 1968 continued to vest in the Assistant Collector in charge of the Sub-Division as if this Act had not been passed. It may be noticed here that by Act No. 4 of 1969, section 198 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was amended and in sub-section (2) thereof for the words, figures and brackets "The Assistant Collector in charge of the Sub-Division may on his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an order of the Land Management Committee passed under sub-section (1) enquire in the manner prescribed into an allotment made under sub-section (1)", the words, figures and brackets "The Collector may of his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment referred to in sub-section (1) inquire in the manner prescribed into such allotment" were substituted. Similarly, in sub-section (3) for the words "an Assistant Collector in charge of the Sub-Division" the words "the Collector" were substituted. So on the enforcement of U. P. Act No. 4 of 1969 the Collector was empowered to cancel a lease granted by the Land Management Committee and the Assistant Collector in charge of the Sub-Division ceased to have that jurisdiction. However, in view of section 23 of the same Act the Assistant Collector-in-charge of the Sub-Division still continued to have the jurisdiction to make inquiries and pass orders under sub-section (2) of section 198 in relation to allotments made prior to 28th June, 1968 ; hence under U. P. Act No. 4 of 1969 the Assistant Collector did have the power of dealing with the lease granted on 2nd October, 1963 but the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was further amended by the U. P. Act 35 of 1970 and section 198 of the Principal Act was completely amended. Sub-section (3) of Section 198 as (amended) by U. P. Act No. 35 of 1970 reads as follows :- (3) The Collector may of his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment of land inquire in the manner prescribed into such allotment and if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular he may :- (i) cancel the allotment and the lease, if any, and thereupon the right, title and interest of the allottee or lessee or any person claiming through him in the land allotted or leased shall cease, and such land shall revert to the Gaon Sabha, and (ii) direct delivery of possession of such land forthwith to the Gaon Sabha after ejectment of every person holding or retaining possession thereof and may for that purpose use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary." Under this provision the Collector on his own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment of land inquire in the manner prescribed into such allotment and if he was satisfied that the allotment was irregular, he may cancel the allotment and lease, if any. U. P. Act no. 35 of 1970 was assented to by the Governor on December 28, 1970 and was published in the U. P. Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 29th December, 1970. So on 30th November, 1971 when the application was moved by the opposite party no. 4 as also on 23rd October, 1973 when the Sub-Divisional Officer passed the order, the Collector alone had the jurisdiction to cancel the allotment and the lease. The Sub-Divisional Officer had no such jurisdiction. It may be noticed here that the opposite party no. 4 had moved the application for cancellation of the lease granted in favour of the petitioner before the Collector and not before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Collector had sent that application to the Tahsildar for inquiry and report. The Tahsildar forwarded his inquiry and report to the Sub-Divisional Officer who, instead of forwarding it to the Collector for necessary orders himself passed the order on 23rd October, 1973. This he could not do under law. The Board of Revenue was, therefore, not correct in holding that the Assistant Collector-in-charge of the Sub-Division had full jurisdiction to take action under section 198 (2) of the UP ZA and LR Act. The order of the Board of Revenue dated 6th October, 1978 is, therefore, unsustainable. In the result, the petition is allowed with costs. The order of the Board of Revenue dated 6th October, 1978 is quashed. The order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 23rd October, 1973 is also quashed. Petition allowed.;