ARVIND KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri R.N. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.N. Tripathi and Sri B.L. Verma for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. This writ petition has been filed primarily questioning the jurisdiction of the Respondent No. 2 - Additional District Magistrate to entertain the revision filed by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in relation to an order passed under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. The issue, being purely legal, has been raised by Sri R.N. Yadav contending that the Additional Collector does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the revision against an order passed by the Assistant Collector under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, and that a revision can be filed only before the Commissioner as the order is not appealable. He submits that the Additional District Magistrate/Collector, therefore, overreached his authority in proceeding to entertain the said revision and pass orders.

(2.) Sri S.N. Tripathi and Sri B.L. Verma for the contesting respondents have both vehemently urged that in view of the provisions of Section 15 read with Section 18 of the 1901 Act, the Collector being a higher authority than the Assistant Collector, who is subordinate to him, would be entitled to entertain the revision in terms of Section 219 of the 1901 Act. He, therefore, contends that the Assistant Collector, being subordinate to the Collector, entitles the Collector to entertain the revision and the same can be disposed of in accordance with law.

(3.) Learned Standing Counsel, Sri Rajesh Kumar, submits that the legal position has to be determined keeping in view the provisions of Section 33/39, Section 210(6), Section 227(5-A) read with Section 219 of the 1901 Act. His submission is that the Collector will not have the power to entertain a revision arising out of an order under Section 33/39 of the 1901 Act nor any appeal would lie against the same.