Mukteshwar Prasad, J. - (1.) -We have heard Sri N. D. Kesari, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel and Sri Pradeep Kumar appearing for the respondents.
(2.) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 21.8.1979 passed by the respondent No. 1 (Additional District Magistrate (Rural), Allahabad (Annexure-25 to the writ petition) and for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 not to strike off the name of petitioners from the revenue records and not to settle the plots in dispute in favour of anybody. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the Additional District Magistrate has no jurisdiction/authority to decide the complaint of the respondent No. 3 for cancellation of the grant made in favour of the petitioners. Enquiry was not conducted by him personally and he directed the Tehsildar to hold an enquiry. It was urged that the enquiry was not done by the Collector personally as provided under Section 15A of U. P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as Act) and the evidence led by the parties was not considered. Moreover, the grant made in favour of the petitioners could not be cancelled on the basis of single complaint. It was also contended that the petitioners were landless persons on the date of grants and the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Reliance was placed by the petitioner's learned counsel on the following decisions. (1) Shiv Autar v. Nabi and others, 1996 (87) RD 190 ; (2) Smt. Mubarakunisha v. A.D.M. (Rural), Allahabad, 1989 (1) AWC 546 : 1989 RD 209 ; (3) Matoley v. State of U. P. and others, 1986 All CJ 150 ; (4) Ram Dhani Singh v. State of U. P. and others, 1986 RD 374. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to Section 15-A, which was inserted by U. P. Act No. 10 of 1975, with effect from 21.1.1975 and submitted that Collector may suo motu or on the application of any person aggrieved by the grant of any land made under Section 14 enquire into such grant and if he is satisfied that the grant was irregular or was obtained by misrepresentation or fraud, he may cancel the grant. In the instant case, this power vested in the Collector of the district was exercised by the Additional District Magistrate/ Additional Collector. He was not a delegatee. Our attention was drawn to a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Shiv Autar's case (supra). The writ petition was filed in this case, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of the respondent No. 3 (Atirict Zila Adhikari) passed under Section 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.
(3.) SECTION 15A of the Act authorises Collector of the district to enquire into the irregularities of the grant. The word 'Collector' has not been defined in the Act. SECTION 2 (f) of the Act provides that the words and expressions not defined in the Act shall have the meaning assigned to them in U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Section 3 (4) of U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951 defines the word Collector, "Collector" means an officer appointed as Collector under the provisions of U. P. Land Revenue Act, and includes an Assistant Collector of the first class empowered by the State Government by a notification in the Gazette to discharge all or any of the function of a Collector under this Act. Therefore, in view of Section 3 (4) of U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951, Additional Collector/A.D.M. is not included in the definition of Collector. Sub-section (3) of Section 14A of U. P. Land Revenue Act provides that an Additional Collector shall exercise such powers and discharge such duties of a Collector in such cases or class of cases as the Collector concerned may direct. In the instant case, there is no material on record to conclude that the Additional District Magistrate / Additional Collector had been empowered and was entrusted by the Collector to hold an enquiry under Section 15-A of the Act on his behalf. This point was discussed by the Division Bench in Shiv Avtar's case (supra) and was held that the Additional Collector is a delegatee of the Collector and has no independent power or duty except those entrusted to him by the Collector. In our opinion, the Additional Collector/A.D.M. is neither a Collector nor Assistant Collector for the purposes of the Act.;