KEDAR NATH SINGH Vs. BINDA BUX SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following question has been referred to this Bench by the Chairman of the Board:-

(2.) The facts briefly are that a mutation case consequent upon the death of Sri Sheo Kumar Singh son of Ram Padarat Singh resident of village Bisawan tahsil and district Sultanpur was started. One Binda Bux Singh filed an objection, claiming to be the son of the deceased. During the pendency of the case, Kedar Nath Singh moved a Transfer application in the court of the Additional Collector (J) praying that the case be transferred from the court of Tahsildar to i some other court for reasons mentioned in the Transfer Application. On 8-9-1961, the Additional Collector Judicial transferred the case to Sri Ram Swaroop, Assistant Collector 1st Class, for disposal. The case subsequently reached the Court of Sri G. S. Chaubey, Assistant Collector 1st Class, who decided it in favour of Sri Binda Bux Singh. Sri Kedar Nath Singh filed a revision under Sec. 218 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act. The learned Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, forwarded the case to the Board with the recommendation that the case be tried afresh by a Tahsildar competent to try the case. He expressed the opinion that a mutation case based on succession could only be tried by a Tahsildar and not by a Sub-Divisional Officer or an Assistant Collector 1st Class and as such the order passed by the trial court was without jurisdiction.

(3.) The counsel for the parties argues the case at length. According to the learned counsel for the revisionist, the revenue Officer must be subordi nate to the person ordering transfer. He relied upon the case of Visnwanath Vs. Sugia, 1969 R.D. 456 in support of his argument. Under Sec. 192 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, the Collector, an Assistant Collector incharge of a Sub-Division in a district, a Tahsildar, a Record Officer, or a Settlement Officer may make over any case or class of cases, arising under the provisions of this Act or therwise, for inquiry or decision from his own file to any of his subordinates competent to deal with such cases or class of cases. In the case referred to by the learned counsel for the revisionist, a Full Bench of the Board held that all the revenue Officers including Sub-Divisional Officers functioning in a district are subordinate to the Collector of the district in a general way. But from this it does not follow that the Collector can by virtue of this provision hear the appeals against their decisions or give them directions in the discharge of Judicial functions except as provided by law. Relying upon this principle, the learned counsel urged that the learned Additional Collector was not competent to transfer the mutation case to an Assistant Collector of the 1st Class. He further referred to Sec. 227 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act in which the powers of an Assistant Collector in-charge of a subdivision have been defined. According to him, a mutation case cannot be disposed of by an Assistant Collector Incharge of a sub-division. He further referred to Sec. 33(3) of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. Under Sec. 33(1), the responsibility for maintaining the record of rights has been vested in the Collector. Sub-sec. (3) lays down that no such change or transaction shall be recorded without the order of the Collector, or as hereinafter provided, of the Tahsildar or the Qanungo.