S.K.SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Rai, learned Counsel in support of this petition and Sri Shukla, learned Standing Counsel in opposition thereof.
(2.) CHALLENGE in this petition is to the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer by which application of the petitioner challenging appointment of a particular Counsel to contest the State has been over­ruled. Revision has been dismissed by both higher Courts. After hearing arguments and on perusal of the fact the following situations emerges. ,
(3.) IN the suit filed by the plaintiff under section 163 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act seeking eviction of the petitioner, a particu­lar Counsel was appointed on the direction of the learned Collector who is said to be the custodian of the Gaon Sabha/State property. That engagement was objected by the petitioner. Sub-Divisional Officer said that he is not to sit over the or­ders/direction so given by the Collector. The order of the Collector directing en­gagement of a particular Counsel can oth­erwise also said to be an order in the ad­ministrative side. Petitioner was to contest the eviction proceeding and therefore all kinds of objection can be expected from his side who was defendant in there.;