- (1.) HEARD Sri B. C. Srivastava, holding brief of Sri Shashi Nandan, learned counsel appearing for Sri Shiv Autar, the petitioner, Sri R. K. Saxena, learned Standing Counsel representing the Atirikt Zila Adhikari, Deoria, the respondent No. 3 and Sri S. Banerjee, holding brief of Sri K. B. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha village Baliyawa, Tappa Barnai, Pargana Silhat, Tehsil and District Deoria through its Pradhan, the respondent No. 2. No body has appeared for Sri Nabi, the respondent No. 1.
(2.) THE Land Management Committee of the Gaon Sabha village Baliyawa passed a resolution dated 20th June, 1977 allotting an Abadi land to the petitioner which was approved by the Assistant Collector by his order dated 8th July, 1977. Following the allotment and approval the petitioner was put in possession of the land and built a house thereon. On a complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 on 17th October, 1977 proceeding under sub-section (4) of Section 198 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, (hereinafter called the Act), for cancellation of the allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner was initiated. The proceeding culminated into the order dated 20th January, 1978 passed by the Atirikt Zila Adhikari, Deoria (Additional Collector, Deoria), a copy whereof is Annexure (1) to the petition. By this order the allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and praying for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of the respondent No. 3 dated 20th January, 1978. The petitioner contends that the respondent No. 3 had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and cancel the allotment of the land in his favour as under sub-section (4) of Section 198 of the Act, it is only the Collector who is empowered to cancel an allotment of land and the expression 'collector' does not include Additional Collector.
(3.) COUNTERING the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contend that the expression 'collector' includes in Additional Collector also, and that being so the respondent No. 3 had jurisdiction and was fully empowered to pass the impugned order dated 20th January, 1978. Sub-section (4) of Section 198 of the Act is as follows: " (4 ). The Collector may of his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment of land inquire in the manner prescribed into such allotment and if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular, he may cancel the allotment and the lease, if any. ";