JUDGMENT R. S. Singh, J. 1. THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the Board of Revenue dated 23-6-1976. 2. IT appears from the facts of the case that the Land Management Committee had made certain allotments in favour of Kamta Prasad and Har Prasad, respondent nos. 4 and 5 by auction on 15-4-1969 and 29-9-1970. Shiv Charan and Cheda Lal, the petitioners, filed an objection for cancellation of these allotments on the ground that they were not in accordance with rules and no auction took place at all. The Sub-Divisional Officer, before whom this objection was filed, after necessary enquiry found no irregularity in the allotments and rejected the objections of the petitioners. The petitioners filed a revision against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Addl. Commissioner, after hearing the parties, made a recommendation to the Board of Revenue for setting aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 17-2-1972 and for cancelling the aforesaid allotments. When the revision came before the Board of Revenue, the same was dismissed with the finding that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer cannot be deemed to be judicial in nature and no revision lay against it. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid order of the Board of Revenue in the present writ petition before this Court. The only point for consideration in this case is whether a revision lies to the Board of Revenue under Section 333 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) against the order of the Assistant Collector incharge of a sub-division (S. D. O.) passed under Rule 115-N of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules (hereinafter referred to as Rules). Rule 115-N (now Rule 115-H)gave power to the S. D. O. (now to the Collector) for cancellation of the allotment made by Land Management Committee in respect of the abadi site in case it is not in accordance with the rules made for making allotments. The power of revision is given under Section 333 of the Act. Section 333 is as follows :- "333. Power of Board to call for cases. The power of revision is given under Section 333 of the Act. Section 333 is as follows :- "333. Power of Board to call for cases. -The Board may call for the record of any suit or proceeding decided by any .subordinate court in which no appeal lies, or when 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 ; (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. 3. ACCORDING to this provision the Board of Revenue may call for the record of any suit or proceeding decided by any subordinate court on the conditions and grounds mentioned in Section 333 and may pass such orders in the case as it thinks fit. One of the requirements of Section 333 is that it should be a suit or proceeding decided by any subordinate court. In case it is not an order of a court, Section 333 will not be attracted. Therefore, according to the provision of Section 333 there should be a decision of the Court. In other words, it should be a judicial proceeding and not non-judicial one. In Kishan Lal Jat v. State of U.P., 1966 AWR 734 Mr. Justice Broome held that :- "A revision lies to the Board of Revenue u/Sec. 333 only against decisions of a subordinate court ; and it cannot be said that the SDO acting under Rule 115-N functions as a court." In this decision, the point in question has not been discussed and no reasons have been given. In Smt. Krishna Devi v. Board of Revenue, 1972 AWR 409 decision of Justice Broome (Supra) was shown and the learned single Judge held that this decision requires reconsideration. In Smt. Krishna Devi v. Board of Revenue, 1972 AWR 409 decision of Justice Broome (Supra) was shown and the learned single Judge held that this decision requires reconsideration. He accordingly referred the following question to the Division bench :- "Whether a revision lies to the Board of Revenue under Section 333 of the UP ZA and LR Act against the order of an Assistant Collector in-charge of a Sub-Division (SDO) passed under Rule 113-N of the UP ZA and LR Rules, setting aside an auction of an abadi site by the Land Management Committee." The Division bench of this court has fully discussed this point whether Sub-Divisional Officer deciding a case of allotment of abadi site functions as a court and the decision given by him is judicial or non-judicial proceeding. Paragraph 9 of the Division Bench decision is as follow :- "It was urged that proceedings under Rule 115-N are non-judicial. In our opinion, the submission is misconceived. Under Rule 115-N, the Assistant Collector in-charge resolves a lis between two parties. In view of sub-section (3) he makes a 'decision' in the case. His decision is final. Under sub-Rule (iii) he has to hear the parties. Thereafter, he decides the case by a written order which records the reasons for the conclusions reached by him. Further, he can cancel the allotment only on grounds mentioned in sub-Rule (i). These various features leave no room for doubt that the Assistant Collector discharges judicial functions under Rule 115-N. These proceedings cannot possibly be held to be administrative in nature." In paragraph 10, the conclusion is given as follows :- "The proceedings under Rule 115-N being judicial in nature, and the Assistant Collector being a court subordinate to the Board of Revenue, a revision against his orders is maintainable." 4. THE Division Bench decision 1972 AWR 409 (Supra) was placed before the Board of Revenue yet it was held that the order of the Sub Divisional Officer cannot be deemed to be judicial and no revision lay against it. It appears that the subordinate courts are sometime in too much hurry in disposing of the cases without applying their mind to the provisions of law and the decisions of the High Court on the point. It appears that the subordinate courts are sometime in too much hurry in disposing of the cases without applying their mind to the provisions of law and the decisions of the High Court on the point. It is also that sometimes patent and obvious mistake is committed by the subordinate courts in not correctly interpreting the provisions of law and the decisions of the superior courts due to lack of sufficient experience and want of adequate knowledge. But such things can never be expected from the Board of Revenue, which is the highest revenue court of the State. The Members of the Board of Revenue are senior and experienced officers and are always expected while deciding revenue cases, to give judicial consideration and patient hearing. It is generally said that justice not only to be done but should also be shown to have been done. In other words, the defeated party should feel satisfaction that his case has been fully heard and properly decided. Hurried judgments and unsatisfactory decisions create bad impression and dissatisfaction in the minds of the litigants and this is one of the reasons of unnecessary litigation in appellate and revisional courts and thereby increasing arrears in the superior courts. 5. IT is often said that litigant interest is supreme, but it depends on the ability of lawyer and the quality of the officer. Some Govt. officers are more of judicial views and some of them are too much of their administrative views. In this matter it is for the Government to take care to appoint such officers who have judicial approach to the post of Member, Board of Revenue for deciding judicial cases and not those officers who are too much of administrative views. Sometimes, it happens that some such officers, if not retained on administrative post for one reason or the other, are appointed Member, Board of Revenue much against their wishes and they generally try to pass on their time waiting for the opportune time to go back again to some administrative post. In fact they take little interest in the judicial work with the result the litigants interest badly suffers and the aggrieved party has to rush to the High Court for the satisfaction of getting proper relief. 6. THE present case is a clear example of it. In fact they take little interest in the judicial work with the result the litigants interest badly suffers and the aggrieved party has to rush to the High Court for the satisfaction of getting proper relief. 6. THE present case is a clear example of it. This is a judgment of Sri P. C. Saxena, Member Board of Revenue, who has observed in paragraph 4 of his judgment that :- "Learned counsel for the revisionist has cited a ruling reported in 1972 AWR 409 In support of his contention that the order of the SDO was subject to judicial revision. I have studied the ruling carefully. It deals with a case where the trial court had cancelled the allotment In favour of a party under Rule 115-N of the UP ZA and LR Rules. In the present Instance, the SDO has not cancelled the allotment but gave a finding that the auction had been done In a regular manner. A careful perusal of Rule 115-N shows that It concerns only an order of the SDO cancelling an allotment. Thus, in the present instance, the order of the SDO cannot be deemed to be judicial in nature and no revision lay against it." Sri Saxena has distinguished the Division bench case of this court on the ground that it deals with a case where the trial court had cancelled the allotment in favour of a party under Rule 115-N of the Rules. According to Mr. Saxena, in the persent case the SDO has not cancelled the allotment but gave a finding that the auction had been done in a regular manner. Mr. Saxena has further observed in this paragraph of his judgment that he has studied the ruling carefully and a careful perusal of Rule 115-N shows that it concerns only an order of the SDO cancelling allotment. But I very much doubt whether Mr. Saxena had really gone through the ruling of this Court carefully and whether he carefully perused Rule 115-N ? I am sure If he would have curefully gone through the law and the ruling, he would not have come to the conclusion that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was not an order of judicial nature. Saxena had really gone through the ruling of this Court carefully and whether he carefully perused Rule 115-N ? I am sure If he would have curefully gone through the law and the ruling, he would not have come to the conclusion that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was not an order of judicial nature. When this very matter has already been dealt with by the Division bench of this court in great detail and conclusion has been drawn in very clear words that the proceeding under Rule 115-N is of judicial nature and Assistant Collector being a court subordinate to the Board of Revenue, a revision against his order is maintainable. It was legally not possible to distinguish this case on such a flimsy ground otherwise sometimes the cases may be distinguished by some subordinate courts on the ground that the names of the parties are not the same. It is the principle laid down in the case which matters and not the form or the name of the parties. According to Mr. Saxena, he has carefully gone through the ruling reported in 1972 AWR 409 (Supra) and if this fact is correct, it may simply mean that he wanted to impose and maintain his administrative views over and above the decision of this Court. Even if he considered that his administrative views are superior and more correct than the views taken by this Court, he being a subordinate Court was bound by the decision of this Court. Deciding the case openly contrary to the views taken by this Court may mean disrespect to this Court, which is a very serious matter. THE subordinate Courts are always expected rather bound to follow the decisions of this Court, howsoever erroneous they may be, according to their view. This type of arbitrary decision is a matter of harassment to the bonafide litigants. THE courts of law are always expected to give patient hearing and adequate relief to the aggrieved party and not to throw away the cases only with the object of disposal or to carry out their administrative views. Such things only multiply cases and is no disposal in real sense. THE courts of law are always expected to give patient hearing and adequate relief to the aggrieved party and not to throw away the cases only with the object of disposal or to carry out their administrative views. Such things only multiply cases and is no disposal in real sense. In view of what has been discussed above, I hereby allow this writ petition, quash the order of the Board of Revenue dated 23-6-1976 and direct it to decide the case afresh according to law and in the light of the observations made above. However, the parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed.