BABU SINGH Vs. MAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, under Sec. 218 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act in a mutation case based on transfer. He has expressed no opinion on merits of the case; but has observed in his order dated July 17, 1965. that the learned Additional Collector, Etawah was not competent to entertain the revision application filed by Babu Singh in a mutation case based on transfer and decided by the S.D.O. Auraiya. The facts of the case are briefly as follows:-

(2.) Gajraj Singh, son of Jharde Singh, was the recorded sirdar of the plots in dispute. He deposited 10-times of the Land Revenue on Oct. 7, 1961, and executed a sale-deed of the plots in dispute in favour of Man Singh the same day. The bhumidhari sanad was issued on Oct. 24, 1961, declaring Gajraj Singh as bhumidhar of the plots in dispute. It is reported that Gajraj Singh died after depositing 10-times of the Land Revenue and the execution of the sale-deed, but before the grant of the bhumidhari sanad. The vendee, Man Singh, applied for grant of bhumidhari sanad in the court of the Tahsildar. His request was rejected. An appeal was filed against that order, in which the Additional Commissioner held that Gajraj Singh had every right to execute the sale-deed in favour of Man Singh, and that Man Singh could ask for bhumidhari sanad, after the death of Gajraj Singh. The S.D.O., Auraiya, in his order dated July 29, 1964, came to the conclusion that the vendor was entitled to sell the plots in dispute to the vendee even though the bhumidhari sanad was obtained subsequently. He, therefore, allowed the mutation application of the vendee. Aggrieved by this order, Babu Singh, who had filed an objection in the trial court, went up in revision in the court of the Additional Collector (J.), Etawah, who came to the conclusion that the order of the trial court is illegal. He has recommended that the case should be remanded to the lower court for retrial according to law. The learned Additional Commissioner has expressed no opinion on merits of the case, but has observed in his forwarding note that the Additional Collector was not competent to entertain the revision application in this case. An objection has been filed against this observation by Babu Singh on Aug. 9, 1965. It has been urged that the Additional Collector (J.) was competent to hear the revision application against the order of the S.D.O.

(3.) I have gone through the record of the case and have heard learned counsels for both the parties. The main question for determination is whether the revision application filed by Babu Singh, should have been presented in the court of the Additional Collector or the Additional Commissioner. Under Sec. 35. sub-clause (2), it has been laid down that on receiving a report of transfer under Sec. 34 or on facts otherwise coming to his knowledge the Tahsildar shall make such enquiry as appears necessary, and then refer the case to the Collector who shall, after making such further enquiries as may be necessary, dispose it of. Under Sec. 227 of the Land Revenue Act, sub-clause (5), an Assistant Collector in-charge of a subdivision of a district, has been given the power to enquire into and decide case' of reported transfers under Sec. 35. In our opinion, the S.D.O. is exercising the powers of the Collector while deciding a mutation case based on transfer. It would obviously be wrong to contend that under Sec. 218 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, the Collector can revise his orders. There are several authorities who are mentioned in Sec. 218 for hearing revision applications, such as, the Commissioner, the Additional Commissioner, the Collector, the Record Officer or Settlement Officer. They can call for the proceedings held by any officer subordinate to them for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the legality or propriety of the order passed and as to the regularity of the proceedings. If an order is passed by a Tahsildar, the revision application would lie in the court of the Collector; but if a case has been disposed of by the S.D.O., who is, in fact, exercising the powers of Collector as envisaged in Sec. 35(2), L.R. Act the revision application will obviously lie in the court of the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the revision was not filed in the proper court, and on this ground alone it is liable to be rejected. I do not consider it necessary to go into the merits of the case. No useful purpose is likely to be served by remanding the case to the trial court, which has already expressed its views on merits. The revision application is dismissed, as it is not maintainable. C.C. No. 1633 for R.D.