JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member - This Bench was constituted by Sri N.C. Sharma by his order dated December 19, 1980, the then Seniormost Member/Chairman of the Board of Revenue, on the reference made by Sri M. Saidullah, the then Member, Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad by his order dated Jan. 28, 1980 as there is a difference of opinion in the Board on the question of the maintainability of a revision in case of refusal by Collector/S.D.O. to enquire into the validity of the allotment made under Rule 115-N of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules. 2. The applicant had moved application to the Collector for cancelling the allotment made to opposite parties which was enquired into by the Addl. Collector, Muzaffarnagar who had dismissed the application by its order dated November 9, 1979. 3. The applicant went in revision against that order of the Additional Collector in revision No. 31 of 1979/Muzafarnagar and the Additional Commissioner by his order dated November 21, 1979 dismissed the revision holding that the order of the Additional Collector and not a judicial order but was executive order against which no revision was maintainable relying on 1976 R.D 389, and that the view taken in 1977 R.D 126 was of no help to the applicants. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri D.N. Srivastava, District Government Counsel (Rev.). Other opposite parties are absent in spite of notice. We have perused the record. 5. In Parasuram v. Sudarshan Sharma 1976 R.D. 380., Sri P.C. Sexena, the then Member, Board of Revenue, held as follows: "Sub-rule (1) of Rule 115-N of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, provided that a Sub-Divisional Officer may cancel an allotment order of the Land Management on the grounds which are mentioned in the sub-rule. It would, therefore, be an order of cancellation which would fall within the scope of this rule. If the Sub-Divisional Officer refuses to interfere in the matter, his order to that effect cannot be deemed to be under Rule 115-N of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules or of a judicial nature subject to judicial review. Sub-rule (2) makes it clear that the order contemplated under sub-rule (2) of Rule 115-N is only an order of cancellation of an allotment and not an order refusing to interfere. Sub-rule (2) makes it clear that the order contemplated under sub-rule (2) of Rule 115-N is only an order of cancellation of an allotment and not an order refusing to interfere. The allotment of land by a Land Management Committee is an administrative act. The decision not to interfere in the allotment must, therefore, be held to be non-judicial and, therefore, not subject to judicial review." 6. In Ram Manorath v. Bhagwati 1977 R.D. 126. it was held by Sri H.N. Agarwal, the then Member, Board of Revenue, as follows: "In a revision, the Board of Revenue has to satisfy itself whether or not there has been any error or illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction by a subordinate Court. If it is found that a subordinate Court has been guilty of such error or irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction, the Board will be quite justified in revisional interference. When the revisionist was in fact the person who had moved the application before the Sub-Divisional Officer for suo motu action and if he brings the illegality or the error in the exercise of jurisdiction committed by the Sub-Divisional Officer to the notice of the Board, it cannot be said that the revision is not maintainable. In other words, the view cannot be accepted that only the State could have come up in revision before the Board in proceedings under Rule 115-N. Orders in a judicial proceeding shall be speaking orders. Once the Sub-Divisional Officer had decided to take suo motu action and issued notice to the allottees, it was incumbent upon him to enquire into the illegality and irregularity of the allotment in question and thereafter either cancel the allotment or pass such other order as he thought fit. The refusal of the Sub-Divisional Officer to enquire into the matter and to pass any substantive order also amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction vested by law." 7. It was argued on behalf of the applicant that proceeding under Rule 115-P of the U.P. Z.A and L.R. Rules is a judicial proceeding. Therefore, a revision lies against the order of the Collector dismissing the application for cancelling the allotment. 8. It was argued, in reply, that refusing to cancel the allotment and dismissing the application for such cancellation is executive order and no revision lies against such refusal. 9. Therefore, a revision lies against the order of the Collector dismissing the application for cancelling the allotment. 8. It was argued, in reply, that refusing to cancel the allotment and dismissing the application for such cancellation is executive order and no revision lies against such refusal. 9. Reliance has been placed by applicants on 1977 R.D. 126 and no behalf of the State on 1976 R.D. 389, quoted above. 10. Rule 115-P of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules runs as follows: "115-P (1) The Collector may, of his own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved by any order of allotment of land under rule 115-L, or 115-M, proceed to make an inquiry in the manner given hereunder. (2) The allottee and Land Management Committee shall be necessary parties to all such cases. (3) The Collector on the application of any party or otherwise may pay suitable interim orders at any time before the final disposal of the case. (4) The Collector shall call upon all persons interested in the order of allotment to appear and present their case before him. It shall not be necessary to record evidence but the memo of the day to day inquiry shall be kept on record by the Collector. On making inquiries, if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular, he may cancel the allotment and thereupon the right, title and interest of the allottee and of every other person though him in the land shall cases. (5) The order of the Collector under the preceding sub-rule shall be final." This rule enjoins on the Collector of his own motion or on the application or any person aggrieved by any order of allotment of land under Rule 115-L or Rule 115-M, to make an enquiry in the manger given in the rule. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 115-P, quoted above, shows that the enquiry made by the Collector is a summery judicial enquiry as he is required to keep compulsorily memo of the day to day enquiry on the record. He has been given discretion not to record the evidence. 11. There is no two opinion that if the Collector cancels the allotment, revision lies against such order although the order of the Collector passed under Rule 115-P is final according to its sub-rule (5). He has been given discretion not to record the evidence. 11. There is no two opinion that if the Collector cancels the allotment, revision lies against such order although the order of the Collector passed under Rule 115-P is final according to its sub-rule (5). Ordinarily, no revision would have been entertainable even against the order of cancellation of the allotment but as such an enquiry has been held to be judicial enquiry, it has been made revisable by the Board, under Section 333 of U.P. Act I of 1951 which runs as follows: "333. The Board may call for the record of any suit of proceedings decided by any subordinate court in which no appeal lies or where an appeal lies but has not been preferred, and if such subordinate court appears- (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or (c) to have acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity; the Board may pass such order in the case, as it thinks fit." This section authorises the Board to call for the record of any suit or proceeding decided by any subordinate Court. By subordinate revenue court in the section meant subordinate revenue court. 12. Section 4(8) of the Land Revenue Act defines Revenue Courts, which runs as follows: "4. (8) 'Revenue Court' means all or any of the following authorities, that is to say, the Board and all members therefore, Commissioner, Additional Commissioner, Collector, Additional Collector, Assistant Collectors, Settlement Officers, Assistant Settlement Officers, Record Officers, Assistant Record Officers and Tahsildars." It is clear from the perusal of Section 4(8) of the U.P. Land Revenue Act that Collectors, Additional Collectors, Assistant Collectors etc., mentioned in the section are subordinate revenue courts, subordinate to the Board. 13. Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act interprets 'Court' as follows: "'Court'-'Court' includes all Judges and Magistrates, and all persons, except arbitrators, legal authorized to take evidence." 14. The Collector or the Additional Collector making enquiry under Rule 115-P are as subordinate revenue courts. 13. Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act interprets 'Court' as follows: "'Court'-'Court' includes all Judges and Magistrates, and all persons, except arbitrators, legal authorized to take evidence." 14. The Collector or the Additional Collector making enquiry under Rule 115-P are as subordinate revenue courts. The proceeding under the said rule is of summary nature in which recording of evidence is not prohibited because its sub-section (4) prescribes that it shall not be necessary to record evidence but the memo of the day to day enquiry shall be kept on the record by the Collector, which means that the memo of the evidence adduced by the parties also shall be kept on the record by the Collector if the evidence is not recorded, and if it is recorded it shall also be on the record for the perusal of the Board, which has been authorised by Section 333 of U.P. Act I of 1951 to call for the records of the subordinate courts in a suit or in a proceedings for passing such orders as it deems fit. Thus, the enquiry made under Rule 115-P by the Collector or the Additional Collector is a judicial under Section 4(8) of the Land Revenue Act and by Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. Revenue Court has not been defined anywhere else. In Smt. Krishna Devi v. Board of Revenue 1972 R.D. 228. the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court has held that the proceedings under Rule 115-N cannot possibly be held to be administrative in nature because a lis between two parties is resolved and a decision is made which is final and parties are heard and the matter is decided by a written order recording reasons for the conclusions reached. The view taken by Sri P.C. Saxena in 1976 R.D. 389, (supra), to our mind, is not correct and is against the decision of the Hon'ble High Court mentioned above. The distinction made by him is unwarranted that when the Patta is cancelled then only it is a judicial proceeding and if it is not cancelled and the application for cancellation of the Patta is dismissed it becomes a non-judicial proceeding and it amounts to executive order. The distinction made by him is unwarranted that when the Patta is cancelled then only it is a judicial proceeding and if it is not cancelled and the application for cancellation of the Patta is dismissed it becomes a non-judicial proceeding and it amounts to executive order. The reasoning is fallacious and is not acceptable, because once the proceedings is held to be judicial proceeding, conducted by a revenue court, its result will not change its nature and it shall remain a judicial proceeding even if the order is of refusal to cancel the Patta. The view taken by Sri Saxena, therefore, cannot be approved. The view taken by Sri Agarwal in 1977 R.D. 126, (supra), is the correct view and is approved. 15. In view of the above our answer is that revision lies against the order of the Collector or Additional Collector in a proceeding under Rule 115-P of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules even if the order is of refusal for cancelling the Patta. 16. Let the record be sent to the Member concerned having jurisdiction for deciding the revision.