- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. In this case, the petitioner has challenged an order passed by the Collector in a revision preferred under sub- section (4-A) of Section 122-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that the order passed by the Collector is final in view of sub-section (4-C) of the said section. He contends that in view of sub-section (4-E), no suit is maintainable. In exercise of writ jurisdiction, the High Court cannot decide title and it is a - pure question of fact. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner lacks in substance. Inasmuch as sub-section (4- A) provides that any person aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector may prefer a revision. Sub- section (4-C) prescribes that an order passed by the Collector in revision shall be final but is subject to sub-section (4-D ). Sub- section (4-D) enables a person aggrieved by an order passed by the Collector to establish his title by filing a suit. Therefore, the finality of the order of the Collector as contemplated in sub-section (4-C) is subject to sub-section (4-D) which does not prohibit filing of the suit in order to establish his title and in case he succeeds, the order passed by the Collector in revision shall he subject to such result of the suit. Sub-section (4-E) does not operate as a bar in filing suits. If the interpretation, as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is accepted, in that event, sub-sections (4-D) and (4- E) would contradict each other and would create a totally anomalous situation. A statute is always to be reconciled and given a harmonious construction, even in case there is contradiction. But in the present case, there is no such contradiction. The plain and simple meaning of sub-Sections (4- C), (4-D) and (4-E) indicates that there is no contradiction at all. While sub-section (4-C) makes the order of the Collector final, at the same time, it specifies that the same is subject to sub-section (4-D ). Sub-section (4- D) enables an aggrieved person to establish his title by way of suit against both the orders passed by the Assistant Collector and the Collector. Thereby it means that without preferring a revision, a person aggrieved by the order of the Collector may file a suit. In order to prevent parallel proceedings, sub- section (4-E) has been engrafted. The bar of filing suit operates in view of sub-section (4-E) only to the extent that if a person aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector prefers a revision, he cannot file a suit. But as soon an order is passed by the Collector, sub-section (4- D) is revived with the right to file a suit for establishing his right inasmuch as the order passed in revision becomes final as contemplated in sub-section (4-C) subject to sub-section (4-D ). Sub-section (4-E) does not provide that no suit shall be against the order passed by the Collector. When the Legislature has used two expressions "assistant Collector" and "collector" in sub-section (4-D) and immediately thereafter when it is omitting the order passed by the Collector in sub-section (4-E), the said omission is deliberate and is meaningful. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, sub-section (4-E) can operate as a bar in the matter of filing suit against the order passed by the Collector in revision. Particularly the question of title can only be gone into through the process of a civil suit before a competent court of jurisdiction and not otherwise. In that view of the matter, this writ petition has no substance, and, as such, is dismissed. This order will not prevent the petitioner to establish his right and title to the property by way of a civil suit filed in a competent court of jurisdiction and obtain an appropriate relief.
(3.) THE writ petition is thus dismissed. THEre will, however, be no order as to costs. Certified copy of this order may be issued on payment of usual charges within seven days. Petition dismissed. .;