PHIJLLO Vs. SANGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by Sri R. N. Srivastava, Addl. Commissioner, Meerut Division through his orders dated 19-12-1972, in revision arising out of the orders dated 4-8-72, passed by Sri G. D. Punetha, S. D. O. Kiarana, Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Muzaffarnagar district, in demarcation proceedings under Sec. 41 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act.

(2.) The case of the parties is stated in the orders of the learned referring court, which is on the record; and is not, therefore, being reproduced again.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent/o. p. made a preliminary objection in this case. Learned counsel argued that the orders passed by the learned Assistant Collector were appealable under Sec. 210 of the U. P. L. R. Act, and that no revision before the Board lay; and, therefore, the reference made by the learned Addl. Commissioner is incompetent and should not be entertained. Learned counsel cited two rulings reported in R. D. 1933 page 675-676 in support of his argument that where an appeal lies, but an appeal has not been preferred but a revision instead, the Board has no power to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of its revisional powers. This is the position which is incorporated in para. 192 of the Revenue Court Manual also.