N.L. Ganguly, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the revisional order dated 18th August, 1993, passed by the District Judge, Muzaffarnagar, allowing the revision and setting aside the order of allotment impugned in the revision which was passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The learned District Judge further directed that the said Officer should allot the portion to the revisionist in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the allotment was made in his favour and in pursuance of the allotment order he got the possession of the accommodation and he is actually in possession of the accommodation in dispute. It was pointed out that under Section 18, the explanation to the said section provides that: The power to rescind the final order under this sub -section shall not include the power to pass an allotment order or to direct the passing of an allotment order in favour of a person different from the allottee mentioned in the order under revision.
(2.) THE provision is very clear to the effect that while rescinding the final order of allotment, the appellate court was not competent or authorised under law to pass an order of allotment or issue direction for passing of an allotment order in favour of any party other than the original allottee. In view of this, the impugned order passed by the District Judge is patently illegal and is liable to be quashed. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is supported with a decision of this Court reported in Shitla Pandey v. IV Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur and others, 1986 (1) ARC 280. In the said case also this Court was pleased to hold that the revisional court while allowing the revision could pass only such an order under this provision which could be executed. It was observed that the direction issued by the revising authority to the petitioner for restoring the status quo by handing over the premises in dispute to the land -lord was in excess of the power vested in him and, therefore, the order of revising authority was quashed. Similarly, while allowing the revision and setting aside the allotment order specific direction to allot, in the present case, was wholly unwarranted and illegal.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent cited Ramesh Kumar v. District Judge Bijnaur and others,, 1993 (22) ALR 253 and submitted that prospective allottee has no locus standi in the matter of application for release filed under Section 16(8) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The facts of the present case are quite different. The petitioner is in actual possession of the building after allotment. The order of the court below was quashed. A direction that should and could have been given by the revisional court was to decide the allotment matter afresh according to law, while the direction given by the revising authority in the present case is in excess of power and leaves nothing for the Rent Control and Eviction Officer except to pass an order of allotment mechanically. This cannot be permitted to be done.;