KUNWAR SEN Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Umesh Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioners. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.8.2012 passed by the Collector, Pilibhit in Revision No. 2 of 2011-12 (Kunwar Sen and others Vs. Kamta Prasad and others) (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) as also the order dated 29.03.2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Pilibhit in Case No. 01 of 2010-11 (Kamta Prasad and others Vs. Kunwar Sen and others) (annexure-2 to the writ petition) and order dated 17.03.2011 passed by the Collector Pilibhit in Revision No. 17 of 2009-10 (Kamta Prasad and others Vs. Kunwar Sen and others) (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the order dated 17.3.2011 passed by the Collector, Pilibhit? in Revision No. 17 of 2009-10 as also the order dated 29.03.2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer Sadar, Pilibhit in Case No. 01 of 2010-11 under Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z. & L.R. Act? (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are without jurisdiction. According to him the Sub-Divisional Officer is the authority to grant the lease but he is not the competent authority to cancel the lease. As such by the impugned order dated 29.03.2012 the Sub-Divisional Officer in Case No. 01 of 2010-11 has passed the order without jurisdiction. He submits that consequently the order dated 17.03.2011 passed by the Collector in Revision No. 17 of 2009-10 is also without jurisdiction because he has remanded the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer relating to an application under Section 198 (4) of the Act which he could not have done.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Prem Pal Singh and others Vs. Board of Revenue, Allahabad and others reported in [2010 (2) CRC 428] to submit that it was the Collector who is empowered to cancel the patta and order of Sub-Divisional Officer cancelling the patta is without jurisdiction.? Insofar as this case is concerned, the consideration before the Court was that when an exparte order was passed in Revision, a restoration application was filed which was rejected, the Court refused to interfere in its writ jurisdiction. No help can be taken by the petitioners from the said judgement in the case of Prem Pal Singh and others (supra).?

(3.) A perusal of the said order dated 10.07.2008 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer indicates that he rejected the application of the respondent filed under Section 198 (4) of the Act on the ground that the patta could have been granted to the petitioner for plantation of trees. It was against that order, a revision was filed before the Collector being Revision No. 17 of 2009-10 and the Collector in that revision has remanded the matter back to the Sub-Divisional Officer for re-deciding the issue on the allegation made for cancellation of patta by providing opportunity to lead the evidence and opportunity of hearing to the parties.