JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member. - This is a reference made by Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi dated 24-2-1982 through which he has recommended that the order of the Additional Collector, Ghazipur, dated 22-11-79 be set aside and the case be remanded back to him for retrial. 2. I have gone through the order and the record and I find that the reasonings given by him are sound and justified and the case deserve to be remanded back for fresh trial. However, the learned counsel for the revisionist opposed this reference mainly on two grounds firstly that the original proceeding had been decided by Additional Collector in the capacity of a Collector, hence State had no authority to bring a revision against the Collector's order through the Collector himself and secondly that the State is not an aggrieved person, hence for that person also no revision can be filed by it. It was also argued that lekhpal is a public servant and is part and parcel of the L.M.C. and being the Secretary of the L. M. C. and he is responsible for actions of the L. M. C. and, therefore, he was not competent to file a complaint against the L. M. C. regarding to the allotment of the land. It was further contended that a patta of Pokhari land can be issued though only asami rights can be accused through such patta and the patta deed not be cancelled. 3. The learned D.G.C. argued that so far as the asami or sirdari rights are concerned this point can be determined by the trial court because the case is liable to be sent back to it so it is not proper at this stage for this court to express its own opinion. A regards the other three points he vehemently opposed the argument of the opposite side and submitted that a Collector has duel capacity by virtue of which he is a Judge as well as a representative of the State and, therefore, if he himself decides any case himself he can file a revision against his own order being the head of the district administrators. As regards the point whether the State is aggrieved party or not he contended that State is the owner of the entire agricultural land because on the date of vesting all the land has vested in it without any encumbrances, hence the State being the owner of the land must be deemed to be an aggrieved party and, therefore, it has every right to file a revision. So far as the question of the filing of the report by lekhpal is concerned he submitted that it is not a complaint but only a report to the Collector who has taken cognizance on sou-motu action, hence the report of the lekhpal cannot be thrown out. It was further argued that lekhpal is only a Secretary of the L. M. C and is thereby an official thereof and he cannot act as a Member of L. M. C. so he has no hand in the allotment of the land. He merely acts as a scribe being the official of the L. M. C. However it is his duty to keep an eye on the function of the L. M. C., hence it is his duty to make the report to the higher authorities including the Collector if in his view any illegality is committed by the L. M. C. 4. After giving careful consideration to the arguments of both the parties I find force in the contention raised by the learned D.G.C. (R) The Collector is the administrative head of the district administration and the representative of the State Government. He acts as a Presiding Officer also if he himself tries a case be can therefore prefer a revision against his own order also being the representation of the State. In other words the revision is filed actually by the State and not by the Collector himself through it is filed though him. Consequently the duel capacity of the Collector entitles him to try cases and to file revisions or appeals as law required and there would be no illegality in the filing of the revisions by him. In the instant case also I find no illegality in the revision and the argument advanced by the opposite party is not tenable. 5. Consequently the duel capacity of the Collector entitles him to try cases and to file revisions or appeals as law required and there would be no illegality in the filing of the revisions by him. In the instant case also I find no illegality in the revision and the argument advanced by the opposite party is not tenable. 5. As regards the State being an aggrieved party I understand that State being the owner of the entire land must be deemed to be an aggrieved person because its interest is involved in every bit of land. Consequently State is the only best person which can file revision in all cases of allotments so as to ascertain that illegal transactions are not being done by the L.M. Cs. The argument of the learned counsel for the opposite party on this point also is not maintainable. 6. As regards the question of asami or sirdari rights on the Pokhri Land this question is still open to be decided by the trial, court hence I need not make any observation and this point because that would prejudice the trial court. However, the trial court may examine this point also during the hearing. 7. After a careful consideration of the material on record I find that the reference made by the learned Addl. Commissioner is worthy of being accepted and the order of the trial court is liable to be set aside. The reference is, therefore, accepted and the revision is allowed and the order of the Additional Collector dated 22-11-1979 is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Collector, Ghazipur to try it himself.