JUDGMENT R.S. Verma, Member - An application was given to the Collector for ordering change in the name of a trustee under Rule 92-J of the UPZA and LR Rules. The Collector sent the case to the Additional Collector for enquiry. The Additional Collector took the evidence of the parties and made other enquiries in the case and he gave report to the Collector with certain recommendations. The Collector passed a short order to the effect "Approved as proposed", and thereby he impliedly passed an order for removal of the trustee. Against that order, a revision was preferred in the Court of the Additional Commissioner. Smt. Madhuri Srivastava, learned Addl. Commissioner, held that the Collector had power to pass the said order under Rule 92-J of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules and, therefore, she dismissed the revision petition. The learned Additional Commissioner did not deal with the case at all and she passed a very short, order, without discussing the merits or demerits of the case. Against that, this second revision has been preferred. 2. In this case, as is obvious, the learned Additional Collector did make enquiries, but he did not pass any order; and the learned Collector did not make any enquiry but passed the final order of removal of the trustee. The question is whether the order under Rule 92-J of the UPZA and LR Rules is an administrative order or a judicial order. If it is an administrative order, there is absolutely no illegality in the procedure followed by the Collector and the Additional Collector. But, if it was a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding, then the mode of enquiry and the order passed after that enquiry are clearly illegal and the said order must be revised. We have to see whether the order under Rule 92-J of the UPZA and LR Rules is an administrative order or a judicial order. Sub-rule (1) of the said Rule lays down that "The Collector shall examine the application and other records relating thereto, and he shall also call for such evidence as he may consider necessary for the disposal of the case." Sub-rule (3) of the said Rule says. Sub-rule (1) of the said Rule lays down that "The Collector shall examine the application and other records relating thereto, and he shall also call for such evidence as he may consider necessary for the disposal of the case." Sub-rule (3) of the said Rule says. After he has satisfied himself that a change in favour of the applicant is due, the Collector shall pass an order to that effect on the application under his dated signature and seal of his court." A bare reading of Rule 92-J, UPZA and LR Rules, shows that while dealing with applications for removal of trustees, the Collector functions as a Court and not as an administrative officer. In that event, the Collector himself should take the evidence and should pass judicial order under the 'seal of his court.' If the Collector thinks that the case should be decided by the Additional Collector, the whole case should be transferred to the Additional Collector, who will have full power to record evidence and to pass necessary orders. But, in this case, the Additional Collector only made enquiries and he did not pass any order at all. He made certain recommendations to the Collector and the Collector approved those recommendations in to. So, in my opinion, the procedure followed by the Collector and the Additional Collector was illegal and the impugned order cannot be sustained. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the opposite party that according to Section 101 of the UPZA and LR Act, 'every order passed under Chapter V shall be appealable to the District Judge' and so the Board of Revenue have no power to entertain the revision petition. I do not agree with this view of the learned counsel because Section 101, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act does not say that every order passed under Chapter V shall be appealable to the District Judge. That section lays down that "An appeal shall lie to the District Judge from any order of the Rehabilitation Grants Officer dismissing an application under Section 85, or disposing of an objection under Section 88 or from any order under Sections 90, 98, 99, 100-A or 100-B.". The impugned order was not passed under any of these sections, and so the question of appeal to the District Judge does not arise. 4. The impugned order was not passed under any of these sections, and so the question of appeal to the District Judge does not arise. 4. Rule 92-J, UPZA and LR Rules, was framed under Section 105 (2) of the UPZA and LR Act. Hence the power of removal of a trustee does not come under Sections 85, 88, 90, 98, 99, 100-A or 100-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Hence, any order passed by the Collector under Rule 92-J of the UPZA and LR Rules will not be subject to appeal to District Judge and will come under the revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue. 5. It was argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the Additional Collector has no power to decide any case under Rule 92-J of the UPZA and LR Rules. That is a debatable point, but I do not want to enter into any discussion about that because in this case the Additional Collector himself had not decided anything but had made only enquiries and had submitted a report only. I may observe here that cases under Rule 92-J, UPZA and LR Rules rarely come before the Collectors and it would not be a great burden on the Collectors to decide such cases themselves. 6. In the present case, I allow the revision, set aside the orders of the learned courts below, and remand the case to the learned Collector for decision afresh after taking evidence of the parties himself.