N.S.RAVI - (1.) THIS revision has been filed under Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against the order dated 26-12-2003 passed by Collector Lalitpur in Revision No. 0 of 2003, SukhLal v. Madpal and others.
(2.) FROM a perusal of the impugned order it is clear that the impugned order has been passed on the application of Sukhlal under Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act and the same pertains to allotment of agricultural land to certain persons. By the impugned order the learned Collector has stayed the Amaldaramad of Tahsildar's order dated 17-12-2003. The D.G.C. (Revenue) has submitted copies of Z.A. Form 57-kha which is list of eligible persons admitted for allotment of agricultural land which contains the orders passed by Tahsildar dated 17-12-2003 whereby the Tahsildar has approved the allotment in favour of certain persons. These forms also contains orders of Assistant Collector Incharge of the sub-division whereby he has allowed the allotment in favour of certain persons whereas has disallowed the said allotment in favour of certain other persons. It is not clear as to under which legal provisions the Assistant Collector Incharge of the sub-division has passed these orders because under Section 197 the power to accord the approval for allotment of land has been conferred on Tahsildar and not on any other authority. Section 198(4) of the Act confers power on Assistant Collector Incharge of the sub-division to inquire into the allotment to satisfy himself that the allotment is regular. This he can do suo moto or on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment and if he comes to the conclusion that the allotment is irregular he may cancel the allotment and the lease, if any after following procedure laid down under law. Similarly revisional powers has been conferred on Collector by Section 198(4) (a) of the Act who on his own motion or on the application of any aggrieved person my call for the record of any suit or proceeding under sub-section (4) decided by the Assistant Collector Incharge of the sub-division for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed in such suit or proceeding and pass such order in the case as he thinks fit and every order passed by the Collector under this sub-section shall be final. Therefore, it is clear that the Collector can look into the legality of the order passed by Assistant Collector Incharge of the sub-divisional one and not into any order passed by the Tahsildar under this section. The revisional powers conferred on the Collector are limited in scope unlike the powers conferred on Board of Revenue under Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. It is for the Assistant Collector Incharge of the sub-division to look into the legality of the Allotment proceedings and that too under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and not otherwise. Therefore, I feel to understand as under what legal provisions the S.D.O. as well as the learned Collector to have passed the impugned orders.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY the impugned order passed by the learned Collector is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned Collector to take action as per provisions of law. Revision is disposed of accordingly. Revision disposed of.;