- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the record.
(2.) THE petitioners feel aggrieved by an order passed in the proceedings under Section 122-C (6) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition And Land Reforms Act, 1950 whereunder the Upper Ziladhikari (Prashasan) has upheld the allot ments made in the proceedings under Section 122-C (1) of the said Act which had been approved by the competent authority vide its order dated 2-6-1995. It appears that Smt. Savitri Devi a newly elected Pradhan alongwith Smt. Ratiya, the wife of a past member of the Gaon Sabha and certain other members of the Gaon Sabha filed an application seeking cancellation of the order dated 2-6-1995 passed by the competent authority raising various objec tions. The Additional Collector in the impugned order has after examining the relevant record has found that the proceedings for the allotment of the land in question for housing sites was not vitiated on account of any error and there was no illegality in the proceedings for the allotment in question It was also observed that the newly elected Pradhan had filed the application on account of personal enmity with the earlier Pradhan during whose tenure the proceedings had been undertaken.
(3.) IT may be noticed that the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 8. 9. 1995 was challenged by the petitioners by means of a revision under Section 333 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The Ad ditional Commissioner vide his order dated, 12. 9. 1995 had, however, dismissed the aforesaid revision on the ground that it was not maintainable in view of the prohibition contained in section 122-C (7) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the view of the Additional Commissioner is manifestly erroneous inasmuch as this Court in its decision in the case of Smt. Bhoodevi v. The Board of Revenue and others, 1994 RD 92 had clarified that the fact that the allotment under sub-section (4) is final "subject to the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 122-C of the Act. " as comprehended by sub- section (7) of Section 122-C unfolds the intendment of the legislature that allotment under sub-section (4) made by the As sistant Collector is final subject to the power of the Collector to cancel the same under sub-section (6) of Section 122-C of the Act or under Rule 115-P (4) of the Rules. The finality attached to an order under Rule 115-P (4) vide sub-rule (5) cannot restrict the revisional powers of the Board under the Act as what is given under the Act cannot be taken away by it was further observed in the aforesaid decision that any decision that may be taken finally either upholding the allotment or cancelling the same shall be amenable to the revisional powers of the Board under Sections 333 and 333-A of the Act.;