K. C. Agrawal, B. L. Loomba, JJ. - (1.) Having heard counsel for the petitioner, we are not satisfied that the impugned order dated 18-1-1986 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer with which the District Magistrate agreed on 20-1-1986 suffers from any error, being beyond the powers of the aforesaid two authorities. The petitioners counsel urged that the present was a case, under Section 12-H of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, and as no prescribed Authority has been notified by the State Government, neither could the District Magistrate nor the Sub-Divisional Officer pass the said order. We are not satisfied with this submission. After a perusal of Section 12-H we find that it refers back to the Authority, which is appointed under Section 11-B. For the purpose of Section 11 -B, the authority prescribed is the District Magistrate. Consequently, it is the District Magistrate who should be deemed to be the Authority for the purposes of Section 12-H also.
(2.) Counsel urged that the order impugned has been signed by the District Magistrate without indicating the grounds on which it was done, and, therefore, it was not the order of the District Magistrate. We do not agree with the submission. This District Magistrate agreed with which was proposed by the Sab-Divisional Officer. Having agreed the order impugned would be that of the District Magistrate.
(3.) Even if it be assumed that the District Magistrate was not the Prescribed Authority it could be that of the Sub-Divisional Officer, as was the case of the petitioner himself. The Sub-Divisional Officer himself had proposed the order consequently, in these circumstances we cannot agree with the submission of the petitioner's counsel that the order impugned was illegal.;