- (1.) The two petitions in hand are directed against two sets of identical notices-one issued under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (In short the 'Act') and the other issued under Rule 115-P of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules (In short the 'Rules'), and a common order dated 18-2-1993 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad whereby the Board of Revenue rejected as not maintainable the two connected revisions arising out of the notices aforesaid. The notices issued to the Petitioners in original filed by Smt. Bhoodevi and others were phrased in the following words. Adhivakta Prartli Ko Suna Gaya Tatha Tahsildar Ki Janch Akhya Ka Avlokan Kiya. Report Tahsildar Se Vidit Hota Ki Pratham Drasti Me s Karyawahi Apekshit He. Atah Notice Dhara 198 (4) U.P. Ja. Vi. Evem Bhu. Bya, Adhiniyam Jarl Hokar Dinank 16-11-89 Ko Pesh Ho. Similarly, the notices issued under Section 198(4) of the UPZA and LR Act to the Petitioners in both the petitions are couched in the following words. Adhivakta Prarthi Ko Suna Gaya Tatha Tahsildar Ki Janch Akhya Ka Avlokan Kiya, Report Tahsildar Se Vidit Hota He Ki Pratham Drasti Me Kanyawahi Apekshit He Atah notice Dhara 198 (4) TJ. P. Ja. Vi. Evam ' Bhu. Bya. Adhiniyam Jari Hokar Dinank 16-11-89 Ko Pesh Ho.
(2.) On receipt of the notices aforesaid, the Petitioners instead of filing objections, went up in revision before the Additional Commissioner under Section 333A of the Act 1 of 1951. However,, the revisions were dismissed as not maintainable as having been preferred against the interlocutory orders. Revisions were then preferred to the Board of Revenue under Section 333 of the Act, which also ended in dismissal by a common order dated 18-2-1993 as not maintainable though by assigning different reasons. The Petitioners have now come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging impropriety in the notice as also the orders.
(3.) I have heard Sri B. B. Paul, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and also the Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents Sri B. B. Paul canvassed to submissions before me; (1) the order under Rule 115P(1) of the Rules or the one under Section 198(4) of the Act is amenable to revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue under Section 333; and (2) while issuing a notice under Rule 115-P taking suo moto cognizance on the basis of any report of the Tahsildar, the Collector must indicate the reasons for initiating the proceedings for cancellation of allotment.;