B.P.NILARATNA, J. - (1.) THIS is a reference made by the learned Addition­al Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Al­lahabad by his order dated 11-8-1995 passed in revision petition No. 51/1993-1 Pratapgarh. By the referring order, the learned Additional Commissioner has made a reference to the Board recom­mending that the revision petition be al­lowed and the order of the trial Court be set aside.
(2.) IT appears that the SDO in proceedings for allotment of Gaon Sabha land, approved the resolution for allot­ment of land on 10- 4-1992. An application was moved for the cancellation of that order. The trial Court by its order dated 20-3-1993 withdrew the approval. Feeling aggrieved by this order, Ram Chandra and others filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Commissioner from which the present reference has arisen. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. The learned Counsel for the revisionist supported the reference made by the learned Additional Commissioner. The learned DGC (R) has submitted in reply that the trial Court was justified in withdrawing its earlier order because the allotment had not been made in pursuance of that order.
(3.) I have considered the arguments advanced before me by the learned Coun­sel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully. The SDO had accorded his approval and the allot­ment had to be made in compliance of that order. The learned Additional Commis­sioner after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and legal position correctly observed that the SDO was not justified in withdrawing its ap­proval which had been accorded earlier. The view taken by the learned Additional Commissioner is correct. The trial Court has acted illegally in passing the impugned order. Its order cannot be sustained.;