S. K. Mookerji, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by Pullu Singh challenging the order of the Board of Revenue dated 15th July, 1986.
(2.) THE facts of this case are as follows : It appears that the petitioner made an application under Section 122-B of the UP ZA and LR Act complaining therein that opposite party no. 1 Teerath Raj was after grabbing some Gaon Sabha land and making constructions over the same. THE plot in dispute is no. 1574. This application of the petitioner was sent to the Lekhpal for his report and after some time the Lekhpal submitted his report. When the matter came up before the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector Machhlishahr, the necessary notice in Form 49-Ka was issued to opposite party no. 1 Teerath Raj and ultimately on 15-11-1981 the Assistant Collector, Machhlishahr ordered ejectment of opposite party no. 1 from the disputed plot and also imposed a sum of Rs. 520/- as damages against Teerath Raj. In this proceeding the Assistant Collector also held that in the consolidation proceedings the land in dispute was shown as a new abadi (reserved abadi). On 26th November, 1981, opposite party no. 1 Teerath Raj made an application before the above Assistant Collector praying therein that he may be permitted to lead evidence. THE Assistant Collector permitted him to lead evidence and further he made an inspection of the site in dispute, and on inspection the Assistant Collector found the land in dispute as an old abadi and, therefore, on 10th February, 1982 the Assistant Collector cancelled his earlier order dated 15-11-1981, and discharged the notice issued to opposite party no. 1, Teerath Raj in Form 49-Ka. Against this order of the Assistant Collector the petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner on 15-3-1982. A copy of the memorandum of revision is Annexure SA-I to the supplementary affidavit. This revision was filed before the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi. THE Additional Commissioner dismissed the revision of the petitioner on merits on 28th January, 1986. Aggrieved by the order dated 28th January, 1986, the petitioner filed a second revision before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue by its impugned order dated 15th July, 1986, dismissed the revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned State Counsel and Sri K. B. Garg, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha, opposite party no. 2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party that this writ petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner has no locus standi. I do not find any merit in this submission. A perusal of Section 122-B sub-clause (2) specifically mentions : (2) Where from the information received under sub-section (1) or otherwise, the Assistant Collector is satisfied that any property referred to in sub-section (1) has been damaged or misappropriated or any person is in occupation of any land, referred to in that sub-section in contravention of the provisions of this Act, he shall issue notice to the person concerned to show cause why compensation for damage, misappropriation or wrongful occupation as mentioned in such notice be not recovered from him or, as the case may be, why he should not be evicted from such land. " In the present case the information about the alleged unauthorised occupation by opposite party no. 1 Teerath Raj was given by the petitioner, who is also a member of the Gaon Sabha. As such, he has every right to maintain the writ petition. It is needless to mention that from the facts narrated above it is clear that the petitioner only has been pursuing his remedy against the order of the Assistant Collector and the Gaon Sabha has not in fact filed any revision at any stage.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and also the State have also pointed out that against the order of the Assistant Collector dated 10th February, 1982, a revision could have been filed before the Collector only ; but, in this case it was filed before the Commissioner and, subsequently, before the Board of Revenue, which were not competent in law. I think there is force in this submission. Section 122-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was amended by an ordinance in June, 1981 and this ordinance was subsequently replaced by an Act No. XX of 1982 and the provisions of this Amending Act were given effect to from 3-6-81. By this Amending Act, all revisions against the order of the Assistant Collector could be filed before the Collector only. In the present case, the first revision was filed before the Commissioner on 15-3-82 and the second revision was filed before the Board of Revenue some time in April, 1986. In view of the amendment pointed out above, both these revisions were not maintainable. It was further urged by the learned State Counsel that under the above circumstances, the order of the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector dated 10-2-1982 could not now be challenged in the present writ petition, as the applicant had failed to file a writ petition in time challenging the order of the Assistant Collector. It was further argued that once the revision against the order of the Assistant Collector dated 10th February, 1982 was not filed before the Collector, this Court should be slow in granting any discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. I find great force in the above submission. In view of the amendment of Section 122-B a revision against the order of the Assistant Collector dated 10th February, 1982 was maintainable only before the Collector, and the same having not been filed by the petitioner, it is not open to grant him any relief in writ jurisdiction. Further, by the present writ petition the order of the Assistant Collector dated 10th February, 1982 has not even been challenged.;