JUDGMENT D.S. Misra, Member - Ram Dulare and Srimati Siya Dulari filed these second appeals against the judgement and decree dated December 15, 1977 passed by Additional Commissioner, Allahabad, dismissing first appeals No. 101 and 102 of 1973 of appellants and confirming the order of cancellation of lease passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Bindki, district Fatehpur dated February 24, 1973. Later on, the learned counsel for the appellants presented an application that these two appeals be treated as revisions. This application was opposed by the learned District Government Counsel (Revenue) that no appeal could be converted into a revision. On a careful consideration I find that there is no force in the contention of the learned District Government Counsel (Revenue). For it is settled view that in the interest of justice an appeal can be converted into revision. This view also finds support with the pronouncement of the Board of Revenue in Bhagwati v. Gaon Sabha 1976 R.D. 240. These appeals are, therefore, converted into revisions. 2. The facts giving rise to these revisions are that Ram Shanker, Lekhpal reported to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bindki that the lease grated by Gaon Sabha Roti in favour of revisionist was in accordance with law and it required to be cancelled. On it the proceedings started. Notices were issued to the parties and after hearing them the learned Sub-Divisional Officer cancelled the said lease by his order dated April 18, 1969. An appeal was preferred against this order before the Commissioner and the matter went upto the Board and it was remanded by the Board to the trial court for bringing on record the relevant documents and for considering the oral evidence. On receiving the file, the Sub-Divisional Officer re-started the proceedings and cancelled the said lease by his order dated February 24, 1973. Against it the revisionists preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner with a prayer that if no appeal was competent, it may be treated as revision. The learned Additional Commissioner treated it as an appeal and dismissed the appeal by his order dated December 15, 1977 upholding the trial court's order that the lease was liable to be cancelled as in the proclamation issued for the grant of the said lease no plots numbers were mentioned. It was against this order that the present appeals were filed which have now been converted into revisions. 3. It was against this order that the present appeals were filed which have now been converted into revisions. 3. I have heard that learned counsel for the revisionists as well as the learned District Government Counsel (Revenue). 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists was that after enforcement of the Amending Act No. 35 of 1970 the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to enquire into the matter or to cancel the lease. It was within the scope of Collector only to enquire into the matter and to pass necessary orders. 5. The learned District Government Counsel (Revenue), on the other hand, argued that these proceedings had started before his Amending Act and, therefore, the Sub-Divisional Officer was empowered to cancel the said lease granted by the Gaon Sabha. He further argued that inasmuch as the case was sent back for retrial to the court concerned, the Sub-Divisional Officer was perfectly within his bounds to pass order in the said case. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments, but I find no force in the arguments of learned District Government Counsel (Revenue). I, however, find that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionists are sound. No doubt, according to Section 23 of the U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1969, the Sub-Divisional Officer was authorised to cancel the lease grated before June 28, 1968 under Section 198(2) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, but after the promulgation of Act No. 35 of 1970 the said transitory provision no longer subsists and shall be deemed to have been repealed because no such transitory provisions had been given place in the Act 35 of 1970 which did find place in Act 17 of 1968 and the Amending Act 14 of 1969. Such transitory provisions also do not find place in Act 34 of 1974. It is thus clear that after the passing of these amending Acts, referred to above, namely of 1970 and 1974, the Sub-Divisional Officer is no longer empowered to cancel the lease under Section 198 to U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and it is within sole jurisdiction of Collector only. The impugned order of cancellation of lease passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is, therefore, without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. 7. There were previously conflicting decisions of the Board of Revenue over the matter. The impugned order of cancellation of lease passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is, therefore, without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. 7. There were previously conflicting decisions of the Board of Revenue over the matter. It was held in 1977 R.D 135 that the Sub-Divisional Officer continued to have jurisdiction to make inquiries and pass orders under sub-section (2) of Section 198 in relation to the allotments made prior to June 28, 1968 thoughts its contrary view was held in 1978 R.D. 93. But in my opinion, as observed earlier, the transitory provisions of Amending Act of 1969 could not be allowed to prevail after enforcement of Amending Act of 1970, and by virtue of it the Sub-Divisional Officer ceased to have jurisdiction to cancel the lease grated by Land Management Committee in proceedings under sub-section (2) of Section 198, U.P. Z.A and L.R. Act. 8. The learned counsel for the revisionists drew my attention to the decision of a Division Bench of the Board which was formed for considering this question. The Bench consisted of Sri P.C. Saxena and M. Saidullah, Members. It is an unreported decision but the same view was held by the Division Bench of the Board. 9. My attention was also drawn to the fact by the learned counsel for the revisionists that the Board's orders were not completed with and the trial court did not bring on record the papers of Goan Sabha, namely proclamation, agenda etc., concerning the said lease. The said papers were requisitioned and looking to these papers the Lekhpal gave his statement which was believed by the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. I find force in it. The papers requisitioned must have been proved and brought on record, otherwise no evidentiary value could be attached to it. In the instant case the Lekhpal brought the said papers and looking into these papers he said that the disputed plots were not mentioned in the proclamation and hence the evidence suffered for want of it. It was not sufficient. The certified copies of the said documents ought to have been kept on record duly proved so that the learned Additional Commissioner while deciding appeal could have looked into it or the Board while deciding the revisions could look into it. This view finds support from the pronouncement of Board of Revenue reported in 1941 R.D. 68. 10. The certified copies of the said documents ought to have been kept on record duly proved so that the learned Additional Commissioner while deciding appeal could have looked into it or the Board while deciding the revisions could look into it. This view finds support from the pronouncement of Board of Revenue reported in 1941 R.D. 68. 10. On above grounds, I find that the orders passed by the courts below cannot stand and are liable to be quashed. The revisions are, therefore, allowed, the orders passed by the courts below are set aside, and the case is remanded back to the Collector Fatehpur for deciding it in accordance with law. Let a copy of this order be placed on the file of connected revision, No. 160 of 77-78/Fatehpur.