- (1.) S. P. Pandey This is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA & LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), preferred against the judgment and order, dated 7-10-2002 passed by the learned trial Court in Case No. 17 of 2001-02/varanasi under Section 122-C (6) of the Act, dismissing the same and dropping the proceedings in question.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts, giving rise to the instant revision petition are that on the application dated 28- 6-2002 moved by Nijamuddin and Abdul Hamid, proceedings under Section 122-C of the Act were initiated against Amin etc. It has been pleaded by the applicants that they are owners possession of the land and grove in dispute and the pradhan in collusion with the opposite parties, Amin etc. allotted the Rasta in question in their favour despite the fact that the passage is being used as Rasta by the regional public; that the opposite parties are the residents of other district and therefore, the allotment in question should be cancelled. On this application, a report was called for from the tehsildar concerned and on noitce, the opposite parties contested the proceedings by filing their written statements, denying the allegations. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite formalities, did not find any justification for the cancellation of the lease in question and dropped the proceedings vide its order dated 7-10-2002. It is against this order that the instant revision petition has been filed by the applicants before the Board. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties on the point of the maintainability of this revision petition and have also perused the papers on file. Supporting his revision petition as maintainable, the learned Counsel for the revisionist has submitted that a revision petition filed against an order passed by the collector under Section 122 (c) (6) of the Act is very much maintainable in view of the case law reported in 2001 RD 533 (HC), and therefore, treating this revison petition as maintainable, the same may be admitted. The learned Counsel for the opposite party, in reply, urged that a revision, filed against an order passed by the Collector under Section 122-C (6) of the Act is not maintainable as under Section 122-C (7) of the Act the order of the Collector is final and no revision lies against such an order. In support, reliance has been placed on the case law reported in 1992 RJ 92. I have closely and carefully considered the arguments, advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also scanned the papers on file and the case laws, cited. At the very outset , it is pertinent to quote here the provisions of Section 122-C (7) of the Act. It read as follows: "122-C (7) Every order passed by the Assistant Collector under sub-section (4) shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (6), and every order passed by the Collector under sub-section (6) shall be final and the provisions of Section 333 and Section 333-A shall not aply in relation thereto. " In the case law, reported in 1992 UPRJ 92, it has been held that sub-section (7) of Section 122-C of the Act clearly debars a revision under Sections 333 and 333-A of the Act against an order, passed by the Collector under Section 122-C (6) of the Act, while in the case law, reported in 2001 RD 533, it has been held that an order passed by the Collecter under Section 122-C (6) of the Act shall be subject to the revisional jurisdiction. In the case law rported in 1999 RD 34, his loardship has laid down that no revision under Section 333 would lie before the revisional authority against such an order. Furthermore, in the case law, reported as in 2002 RD 186, his lordship has held in para 9 that '. . . . . . . . . . . . there being express bar created under sub-section (7), there is no doubt that the revision cannot be filed against an order passed by the Collector under sub-section (6)'. This is the latest view of the Hon'ble High Court expressed on 18-1-2002, in the aforesaid case law, in this respect.
(3.) HAVING given my thoughtful consideration to the matter in question, it is crystal clear that since the view of two Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble High Court, expressed in the aforesaid two case laws, is in favour of the bar of Section (7) of Section 122-C of the Act to the maintainability of the revision petition filed against an order passed by the Collector under Section 122-C (6) of the Act, I am of the considered opinion that a revision, filed against an order, passed by the Collector under Section 122-C (6) of the Act, would not lie as his order is final and the porovisions of Sections 333 and 333-A of the Act is not applicable in relation thereto and in this view of the matter, this revision petition is clearly not maintainable and therefore, very richly deserves dismissal outright in limine. In view of the above, the revision petition, being not maintainable, is not fit for admission and is according dismissed in limine. Revision dismissed. .;