JUDGMENT H.N. Agrawal, Member. - This is a reference made by Sri R.L. Sharma, Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, recommending that the revision against the order dated December 4, 1974 passed by the Collector, Jalaun in Case No. 1/1973-74 under Rule 115-H of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules, may be dismissed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The facts may be briefly stated here. The revisionist Srimati Gulab Kunwar moved an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalaun stating that she was a landless widow with no means of livelihood and praying for the allotment of land in village Lodhipura. The Sub-Divisional Officer for warded her application to the Pradhan. Subsequently the Sub-Divisional Officer found that Srimati Gulab Kunwar was the only issue of one Jurawan Singh who had about fifteen or sixteen areas of land and she was living with her father and that she had sufficient land even in her own name. The Sub-Divisional Officer thereafter passed an order on November 1, 1971 that Srimati Gulab Kunwar was not entitled to any allotment and her application may be filed. Srimati Gulab Kunwar filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer on November 27, 1971 for review of this order. This time the Sub-Divisional Officer passed a different order on May 10, 1972 holding that Srimati Gulab Kunwar was a landless agricultural widow, that the land which was in her name in village Magrol has already been gifted away by her on February 10, 1968, that the Gaon Sabha Lodhipura had passed a resolution on May, 10, 1971 allotting the land to her. The Sub-Divisional Officer, therefore, approved the allotment made by the Gaon Sabha in favour of Srimati Gulab Kunwar. The Pradhan Gaon Sabha of Lodhipura now moved an application against this order before the Collector. The Collector has by his order dated March 5, 1973 ordered that the Sub-Divisional Officer will enquire afresh if any resolution dated May 10, 1971 was passed after observing all the formalities and thereafter should decide whether Srimati Gulab Kunwar was entitled to get a lease of Gaon Sabha land in her favour. Srimati Gulab Kunwar has now come up in revision against this order. 4. Srimati Gulab Kunwar has now come up in revision against this order. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the order of the learned Collector is against law and merits of the case, that the learned Collector has erred in disbelieving the oral and documentary evidence of the revisionist, that the learned Collector has erred in not considering the so called resolution dated May 10, 1971 of the Gaon Sabha as binding ad that the opinion of the learned Collector to the effect that the revisionist has already land in her name is wrong. The learned counsel for the revisionist has further argued that the Collector had no legal authority to sit over or set aside the judicial order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated May 10, 1972. 5. I may first of all take the question whether the Collector had the power to pass the impugned order. I have perused the order. To my mind, the order does not infringe any provision of law. The Collector is the chief administrative authority for the revenue administration of the district and all land vested in the State or in the Gaon Sabha is under the superintendence and control of the Collector. Section 14 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act provides as follows: "14. Collector of the district - The State Government shall appoint in each district an officer who shall be the Collector of the district, and who shall, throughout his district, exercise all the powers and discharge all the duties conferred and imposed on a Collector by this Act or any other law for the time being in force." Under Section 15 the State Government may appoint to each district as many a number of Assistant Collectors and all such Assistant Collectors in the district shall be subordinate to the Collector. Under Section 122-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms. Act the superintendence, management, preservation and control of all land vested in the Gaon Sabha by the Land Management Committee is subject to the provisions of this Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 198 of the Act provides that the Collector may of his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment of land inquire in the manner prescribed into such allotment. 6. Sub-section (3) of Section 198 of the Act provides that the Collector may of his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment of land inquire in the manner prescribed into such allotment. 6. Reading the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act together, one is irresistibly drawn to the conclusion that the Collector of the district cannot be divested of his power or responsibility of supervising the work of-the land Management Committees and inquiring into the allotment of land made by the Committed either on his own motion or on the applicant in of any person aggrieved. This power of the Collector is not curtailed by the exercise of similar power by virtue of delegation, by the Assistant Collector. The Collector is also entitled to direct the Sub-Divisional Officer to inquire into any matter concerning allotment of land by the Land Management Committee. It of course may be debated whether the Collector is himself entitled to quash the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer or should, if he is satisfied that the order deserves to be quashed, made reference to the Board of Revenue for quashing the order. In the present case, however, the Collector has merely directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to inquire into the matter afresh and has not quashed the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. Thus, the Collector has certainly acted within the frame work of his jurisdiction. 7. Coming to the merits of the case, it is significant to note that the so called resolution of the Gaon Sabha dated May 10, 1971 allotting land to Srimati Gulab Kunwar is not recorded in the original proceedings book and according to the evidence of Shyama Charan (one of the witnesses) no such resolution was ever passed. The Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha has also categorically stated in his application that no such resolution was ever passed. If this is correct, then the so-called resolution can only be called a forgery which would amount to a nullity. The learned Collector has rightly asked the Sub-Divisional Officer to inquire whether the so-called resolution dated May 10, 1971 was in fact duly passed. If no such resolution was passed, the question of the so-called resolution being binding on any party will not arise. The learned Collector has rightly asked the Sub-Divisional Officer to inquire whether the so-called resolution dated May 10, 1971 was in fact duly passed. If no such resolution was passed, the question of the so-called resolution being binding on any party will not arise. As regards the question whether Srimati Gulab Kunwar is a landless agricultural labourer as claimed by her, there is clear cut documentary evidence to the contrary. The extracts of the Khatauni of the village Mangraul for the years 1376 to 1380 Faslis show that Srimati Gulab Kunwar is recorded as a co-Bhumidhar by virtue of being the heir of her late husband Lakhan Singh, in Khata No. 7 consisting of plot No. 80/4 with an area of 1.46 acres. Khata No. 56 with six plots with a total area of 6.17 acres. Khata No. 57 with six plots with an area of 9.32 acres, and co-Sirdar in Khata No. 49, plot No. 83/1 with an area of 3.10 acres and Khata No. 309 with eight plots with a total area of 11.60 acres. Further in the Kutumb Register of village Lodhipura she is shown to be the only issue of her father Juravan Singh with whom she is living and according to the Khatauni of this village for 1376-77 Fasli Juravan Singh is co-Bhumidhar of Khata No. 20 with 11 plots with a total area of 14.23 acres and Khata No. 114 with thirteen plots with a total area of 20.38 acres. The Collector had by his order dated March 5, 1973 directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to give a finding whether Srimati Glub Kunwar had land in her name and whether she was entitled to get lease of Gaon Sabha land. The Collector has in the impugned order without giving any finding on the question correctly required the Sub-Divisional Officer to enquire into this aspect of the matter also. 8. The learned District Government Counsel has argued that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no power to review his earlier order dated November 1, 1971 and thus the subsequent order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated May 10, 1972 is without jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the revisionist has, on the other hand, referred to Gaon Sabha Nibi v. Dy. 8. The learned District Government Counsel has argued that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no power to review his earlier order dated November 1, 1971 and thus the subsequent order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated May 10, 1972 is without jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the revisionist has, on the other hand, referred to Gaon Sabha Nibi v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1969 R.D. 135 in which it has been held that even if a tribunal or a court has not been provided under the Statute to review its judgment it can do so under inherent powers provided that the set of the Tribunal or the Court is not likely to cause injustice to some one else. In the present case, the subsequent order of the Sub-Divisional Officer passed in review is likely to cause injustice to the Gaon Sabha as well as to the landless agricultural labourers and other persons entitled to allotment of land. As such the subsequent order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was to may mind without jurisdiction. However, it is not the Sub-Divisional Officer's order which is the subject matter of the present revision but the Collector's order dated December 4, 1974. 9. Considering all aspects of the matter, I agree with the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner that the impugned order of the learned Collector is a proper one and there has been no error in the exercise of jurisdiction committed by the learned Collector. 10. Accordingly, I hereby dismiss this revision.