- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. Aggrieved by the order, dated 14-2-1984 passed by the Teshildar, petitioners filed a revision under sub- section (4-A) of the Section 122-B of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called as the Act) which has been dismissed. These two orders have been challenged in this writ petition.
(2.) SUB-section (4-D) of Section 122-B of the Act prescribes the procedure for establishment of title through a suit if any person is aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector or Collector. Mr. M. D. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits by reason of sub-section (4-D), after the revision no suit is main tamable. Sub-section (4-E) refers to the order of Assistant Collector only. It has not referred to the order of the Collector. Therefore if a revision is preferred against an order of the Assistant Collector then no suit would be maintainable. But sub-sec tion (4-D) provides that suit can be filed either against the order of the Assistant Collector or against the order of the Col lector. Unless there is a revision there cannot be an order of the Collector against which the suit can be maintained under sub-section (4-D ). From the scheme of the Act it does not appear that a person can skip over sub-section (4) for filing revision under sub-section (4-A ). In order to obtain an order under sub- section (4-A) one has to pass through sub- section (4 ). Therefore the order passed by the Collector having not been excluded from sub-section (4-E) from the purview of sub-section (4-D), a suit against an order passed by the Collec tor in revision under sub-section (4-A) of Section 122-B of the Act is very much maintainable. Such a view has been taken in the case of Kajoda v. Asstt. Collector Finance and Revenue Mathura, 1996 (2) AWC1042; 1996 ACJ 620; Sambhoo Nath v. Chief Revenue Officer/addl. Collector, Al lahabad, 1996 (3) AWC 1432 and Babu Lal v. Collector, Jhansi, 1997 ALT 13.
(3.) IN the present case since the title is disputed, the competent Court is the forum where such dispute can be gone into. IN writ jurisdiction such title cannot be decided. After having heard Mr. M. D. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri C. K. Rai, holding brief for Shri Faujdar Rai, learned Counsel for respon dent No. 4 and Shri O. R Srivastava, learned Counsel respondent No. 5, this writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to take resort to sub-section (4-D) of Section 122-B of the Act. It will be open to the petitioner to avail of the benefit of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act so as to exclude the time taken by him in pursuing the present writ petition for the purpose of calculation of limitation in respect of the suit which may be so filed.;