D.S. Mathur, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under, Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Ram Dular Singh for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated 21 -1 -57 and 17 -2 -1956 of the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad and the Naib Tahsildar, Amethi, District Sultanpur, respectively.
(2.) THE important question of law raised in the present writ petition is whether the Naib Tahsildar, Amethi, Respondent No. 2, had the jurisdiction under Section 12 of the UP Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act, 1949, to cannot or modify a declaration granted under Section 6 of the Act. The material facts of the case as they appear from the documents on record are that the plots in dispute were under an oral agreement mortgaged with Pudai Singh, grandfather to the present Petitioner, ana Mata Bux Singh, Respondent No. 3, had them redeemed on payment of the mortgage money Pudai Singh and Ram Dular singh Petitioner were recorded in village papers as hereditary tenants of these plots. Such an entry continued upto 1357F for a total period of 28 years and it was from 1358F, after the mortgage money had been paid, that the possession of Mata Bux Singh, Respondent No. 3, was entered in village records. Pudai Singh and Ram Dular Singh had deposited ten times the rent and secured a Bhumidhari Sanand with regard to the plots. After the redemption of mortgage Mata Bux Singh moved an application for the correction of entries in village records which was enquired into by the Nyaya Panchayat but the order passed by the Nyaya Panchayat was set aside by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ameihi. It was then that Mata Bux Singh moved an application under Section 12 of the UP Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act, 1949, before the Naib Tahsildar, Amethi for the cancellation of the Bhumidhari Sanad dated 5 -6 -1951 granted to Pudai Singh and Ram Dular Singh. The Naib Tahsildar cancelled the Sanad of the Petitioner under his order dated 17 -2 -1956, Annexure "2" to the Petitioner's affidavit. The Petitioner appealed against the order before the Commissioner, Respondent No. 1, but he dismissed the appeal on 2 -1 -1957 under his order which is Annexure "3" to the affidavit,
(3.) UNDER Section 12 of the Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act, 1949, a declaration granted under Section 6, i.e. the Bhumidhari Sanad, can be cancelled or modified by the Assistant Collector and an appeal against an order passed by the Assistant Collector lies to the Commissioner. The term 'Assistant Collector' has been defined in Section 2(a) of the Act as a person authorised by the State Government to exercise the powers of an Assistant Collector under this Act. The State Government has laid down in Rule 4 of the UP Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Rules that every Assistant Collector appointed under the UP Land Revenue Act, 1901, shall exercise the powers of an Assistant Collector under the Act within the area of his jurisdiction or where so directed, by the Collector in such area as may be allotted to his charge. Consequently, any Assistant Collector duly appointed under the UP Land Revenue Act can exercise the powers of an Assistant Collector under the UP Agricultural Tenants Acquisition of Privileges) Act, 1949, within the area of his jurisdiction. It was under Notification No. 3736(2) 1 -A -414 -53 dated 6 -6 -1953 that all Tahsildars were appointed ex -officio Assistant Collectors of the First Class under Section 15 read with Section 221 of the UP Land Revenue Act. Similarly, under Notification No. 3716 (4)/1 -A -414 53 dated 6 -6 -1953, all Naib Tahsildars were appointed ex officio Assistant Collectors of the second class under Section 15 read with Section 221 of the UP Land Revenue Act. The question which automatically arises is whether these notifications can be considered valid and if the powers of Assistant Collectors were duly conferred on these officers.;