Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the leaned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.
(2.) A proceeding under Section 122-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and. Land Reforms Act, was initiated against the petitioners. After inviting objections, the Prescribed Authority considered the matter and found that the petitioners had not encroached any land of the Gaon Sabha and consequently discharge the notice by an order dated 16.6.1986. No revision was filed by any of the parties and the matter became final. After three years, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who are the villagers, filed a complaint before the Collector. On this complaint, the Collector passed the impugned order holding that the petitioners had encroached the land and had directed the Tehsildar to take consequential action on it. The petitioners being aggrieved have filed the present writ petition.
(3.) In my opinion, the impugned order cannot be sustained. In the first instance, if a complaint had been filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the appropriate authority to consider the matter is the Tehsildar under Section 122-B of the Act and against his order, a revision would lie before the Collector, under Section 122- B(4) of the Act. Consequently, if the impugned order is one under Section 122-B the same has been passed without any authority. However, if the application of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 was entertained as a revision under Section 122-B(4) of the Act, the said revision is not maintainable inasmuch as the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who are the villagers and were not party to the original proceedings were not competent to file a revision. It is trite law that the revision can be filed an aggrieved person. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 cannot be held to be aggrieved persons. Consequently, the impugned order passed on the application which was not maintainable under Section 122-B (4) of the Act. Contently, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ pet' is allowed. Petition Allowed.;