K. C. Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed by the petitioner Nihal Singh challenging the order of the Board of Revenue dated 7-10-1985 in Revision No. 20 L.R. 84-85, and the order of the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, dated 18-3-1985. The Additional Commissioner by the aforesaid order rejected the objection of the petitioner filed 125-Rep.-1987 under Rule 285-1 of U. P. Zamindati Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952, for setting aside the sale of plots belonging to him sold in connection with the realisation of arrears due to the U. P. Financial Corporation Limited, Agra. The Additional Commissioner held that the auction sale challenged by the petitioner was neither irregular nor illegal, and, as such, the sale could not be set aside. It was against this order that revision had been preferred by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue rejected it on the preliminary point raised before it, which was that since the Commissioner was not a court, no revision lay under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901.
(2.) THE connected writ petition No. 16624 of 1985 preferred by Rajvir and others has been filed against a rejection of the objection filed by them to the attachment of the plots belonging to them. This revision was also rejected on the same ground as the revision of Nihal Singh in Writ Petition No. 15833 of 1985. Both of these writ petitions came up for hearing before Hon'bie K. P. Singh, J., who finding contradictory observations in the two decisions reported in Indu Engineering and Textiles Ltd. v. Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, 1984 AWC 772 and Sudama Prasad v. State of U. P., 1968 RD 88= 1967 AWR 657 referred the two writ petitions to a larger Bench. While making the reference, the learned Judge observed : " Therefore, in this connection the provisions of Section 293 of U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951 need be considered and the question whether any revision to the Board would lie in the facts and circumstances of the present case at all. If the answer is in affirmative, whether it would lie under Section 219 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act or under Section 333 of the UP ZA and LR Act. " We may briefly refer to the relevant provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, (U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951) and the Rules, aswell as the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.
(3.) CHAPTER X of U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951 deals Land Revenue. Section 279 provides procedure for recovery of arrears of land revenue. Section 294 conters power on the State Government to make rules for the purposes of carrying into effect the provisions of this CHAPTER. In exercise of this power that the State Government has framed the Rules, which are to be found in CHAPTERs I to XII of the Rules. The relevant rules, with which we are concerned in the present writ petition, are Rule 285-1. Under this rule at any time within thirty days from the date of the sale, application may be made to the Commissioner to set aside the sale on the ground of some material irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting it. Section 293 of U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951 applies Chapters IX and X of U. P. Land Revenue Act in so far as they are not- inconsistent with the provisions of this Act to applications and proceedings made or taken under this Chapter. The expression " this Chapter " used in Section 293 refers to Chapter X of U. P. Act I of 1951. The rules framed under Section 294 would also be covered. Consequently, Section 219, which is to be found in Chapter X of U. P. Land Revenue Act, applies to the proceedings covered by Chapter X of U. P. Act I of 1951 and the rules framed thereunder.;