SURENDRA KUMAR Vs. GAON SABHA AND STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed by Surendra Kumar against the order dated 25-1-90 passed by Sri B. S. Verma, Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, holding that the revision does not lie against the order of Additional Tahsildar (Assistant Collector First Class), Lakhimpur Kheri, dated 29-6-89, rejecting the restoration application of the revisionist in a case Under Sec. 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.

(2.) While arguing the revision for admission, the learned counsel for the revisionist pointed out that the revision against the order of the Assistant Collector under Sec. 122-B lies with the Collector under Sub-section (4-A) or sub-section (4-D). Since the impugned order is against the order of the Assistant Collector refusing to restore the proceedings, it is an order not under Sec. 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L. R. Act, but under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and as such the revision would lie with the Additional Commissioner, and for this purpose the jurisdiction under Sections 333 and 333-A of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act is not barred. He further pressed that his case is very strong because the revisionist asserts that he was neither in possession of Gaon Sabha land nor is in possession of Gaon Sabha land and if any such land is found under his possession, he is will fully prepared to for ego it and vacate the possession, if any, and that in the light of the latest Saw propounded on this point and supported by the Government order on the subject, he may be absolved of the damages. He further pointed out that for ins grant of relief on this strong legal ground he was knocking the doors of the Additional Commissioner and has new come before the Board of Revenue, and in the light of the above the revision should be admitted for hearing and relief granted to the revisionist.

(3.) I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionist. It is not that the case on merit is to be considered at this stage in which he seeks protection of law for being absolved of the damages, when he claims no possession over Gaon Sabha land. What is important is as to who has the jurisdiction to hear his revision. I have carefully examined the provisions of Sec. 122-B of the U P. Z. A. and L.R. Act and the relevant rules on the subject. I am of the view that the Legislature has barred the jurisdiction of the Commissioner and the Board as per stranded provisions given is sub-section (4-C) of Sec. 122-B. The orders passed by the Assistant Collector under sub-section (4-A) and sub-section (4-D) are revisable by the Collector, and for that the revision does not he before the Additional Commissioner or the Board. My views are that if a restoration application against the order passed under sub-section (4-A) of Sec. 122-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act has been moved and has been rejected by the Assistant Collector, the revision will certainly lie before the Collector.