JUDGMENT P.R. Vyas Bhiman, Chairman - Two points were argued in this case of mutation which pertains to dispute between the revisionist claiming as an adopted son and the O.P. No. 1 claiming as an adopted son and the O.P. No. 1 claiming as daughter. The first point which is the basis of reference by the Additional Commissioner is that there was no service of the proclamation on the Pradhan and, therefore, the entire proceedings stand vitiated. The second point was that appeal against the order of the trial court was heard and decided by the Additional Sub-Divisional Officer wherein appellate powers have been conferred only on the Sub-Divisional Officer. A perusal of the file shows that the first point had been wrongly taken because according to paper No. 5/2 of the trial court file the Pradhan had been served by affixation. It should be noted in this connection that the service on the Pradhan is prescribed by the statutory rules and the Revenue Court Manual. Rule A-377 reads as follows:- "A copy of the proclamation shall be served free of charge in each case of (sic) the President of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti simultaneously with the issue of proclamation or within 15 days thereof." It is significant that service is enjoined on the President and not on the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti through its President. The only inference is that the rule envisages service on the Pradhan as an individual. Therefore, the mode of service given in Rule 74 of the same rule shall apply i.e. service by affixation is also a recognised mode of service. It is, therefore, clear that the provision of service on the Pradhan has been observed in this case and the point has been wrongly taken by the Additional Commissioner. As regards the second point, there is no doubt that the impugned appellate order was passed by the Addl. Sub-Divisional Officer because he has clearly described himself as such. It should be seen in this connection that there are circumstances in which the Addl. S.D.O. may enjoy the powers of the S.D.O. This arises basically from Section 18(4) read with Section 18(5) and 18(6) i.e. the State Government under Section 18(4) may direct what power shall be exercised by the Addl. It should be seen in this connection that there are circumstances in which the Addl. S.D.O. may enjoy the powers of the S.D.O. This arises basically from Section 18(4) read with Section 18(5) and 18(6) i.e. the State Government under Section 18(4) may direct what power shall be exercised by the Addl. S.D.O. and while exercising such powers all the provisions relating to the S.D.O. shall apply to him under Section 18(5) Section 18(6) makes it clear that the state Government may delegate this power to the Collector of the district. It is well known that in the State the Collector has been empowered to place any revenue officer under his incharge of a sub-division or in additional charge of the sub-division. Therefore, the powers of the State Government under Section 18(6) are exercisable by the Collector. In this particular case a reference was made to the Collector, Gonda, who has clarified that Sri Anand Bahadur Singh, the officer in question, has been made Addl. Sub-Divisional Officer, Gonda, under local orders and the order does not indicate that the said officer will function as Addl. S.D.O. only for limited extent or only for specific purpose. It is, therefore, evident that he exercised the powers of the S.D.O. under local orders and by virtue of Section 18(6) and the Government notification in this regard enjoyed full appellate powers. I, therefore, find that this point is also without force. 2. Learned counsel in arguments before me also referred to the merits of the rival claimants to the mutation. I find from the Memorandum of provision filed before the Commissioner that the finding of the lower courts has been assailed as perverse. Since the Addl. Commissioner has contended himself in making the reference only on misunderstanding of the factual position of the Proclamation, it is true that under Section 218 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act he should hear the parties on merits and then pass a reasoned order. While, therefore, the reference made on November 3, 1983 is discharged and the case is set back for hearing the parties on merits and passing orders in accordance with law.