JUDGMENT 1. In view of doubts expressed by learned single judge regarding the correctness of Division Bench decision in Indu Engineering and Textiles Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra and others (1984 RD 229) as the amendment in paragraph 911 of Chapter XXXIII of Manual of Orders of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, Revenue Department by which a new clause (K) was added to the said paragraph in the year 1979 and the proceedings taken by the Commissioner relating to realisation of land revenue were made judicial proceedings, was not considered In this bunch of petitions, revision applications have been dismissed by the Board of Revenue on the ground that the proceedings taken by the Commissioner under Rule 285I of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) are not judicial proceedings and the revision u/s 219 of Land Revenue Act was not maintainable as it lies only against an order passed by a subordinate court. Section 234 prior to its amendment by U. P. Act XXX of 1975 confers power on the State Government in respect of matters enumerated therein to frame rules in respect of all clauses of Section 234, including clause (Y) which is as follows : Defining of the classes of cases, matters, business, orders or proceedings which are to be deemed judicial or nonjudicial respectively. Section 234 of U. P. Land Revenue Act prior to its amendment also provided for framing of rules consistent with this Act in respect of all matters enumerated therein It is in exercise of this power under clause (Y) that the State Government made an amendment in paragraph 911 which finds place in the Revenue Manual Part VII providing for rules and procedure for revenue officers. Prior to its amendment mentioned above which was made in the year 1979, paragraph 911 made reference to the arrears of land revenue as realisation and these proceedings were till then to be taken as nonjudicial proceedings. Paragraph 911 of the Revenue Manual as it stood before amendment reads as under : 911. Prior to its amendment mentioned above which was made in the year 1979, paragraph 911 made reference to the arrears of land revenue as realisation and these proceedings were till then to be taken as nonjudicial proceedings. Paragraph 911 of the Revenue Manual as it stood before amendment reads as under : 911. Judicial and nonjudicial matters under section 234 (Y) of the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1901 (U. P. Act III of 1901) Proceedings and orders as well as appeals revisions and references in the following cases under the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1901 (U.P. Act III of 1901), shall be deemed judicial for the purposes of the said Act : (a) Mutations incases of succession or transfer under sections 35 and 40. (b) Specification of the land and fixation of the rent of exproprietary holdings under sections 36, 74(b), 76(2), 186 and 187. (c) Settling of boundary disputes under sections 41 and 51 (d) Other disputed cases relating to entries in the record of rights and annual registers under sections 39, 40, 42, 43 and 54. (e) Decision of disputes concerning dasturdehis (wajibularz) under section 84, subsection (2). (f) Determination and fixation of rent of exproprietary, crccupancy and hereditary tenants under section 87 by way of enhancement, abatement or otherwise. (g) Determination in Oudh under section 79 of the tent to be paid by underproprietors and holders of heritable nontransferableleases holding under a judicial decision. (h) Partition and Union of mahals under Chapter VII except the following matters: (i) taking a mahal under direct management under section 115. (ii) order of the Provincial Government under section 135 directing division of complex mahals, and (iii) sanction of the Provincial Government under section 138, subsection (5), to the partition of taluqdari mahals. (i) deleted. (j) appointment and removal of lambardars except in Kumaun Division. (k) Proceedings taken before the Commissioner or orders passed by him in matters relating to recovery of arrears of land revenue or sums of money recoverable as arrears of land revenue. Paragraph 911 extracted above itself by legal fiction made the proceedings before the Commissioner in respect of matters relating to arrears of land revenue as judicial proceedings. Prior to its amendment by virtue of paragraph 912, all these proceedings were nonjudicial proceedings. Paragraph 911 extracted above itself by legal fiction made the proceedings before the Commissioner in respect of matters relating to arrears of land revenue as judicial proceedings. Prior to its amendment by virtue of paragraph 912, all these proceedings were nonjudicial proceedings. Paragraph 912 of the Revenue Manual reads as under: 912 (1) All cases, proceedings and other matters under the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, not covered by the preceding paragraph, shall be deemed nonjudicial. (2) In cases of doubt whether a matter is of a judicial or nonjudicial nature, a report shall be submitted to Government for orders. Till its amendment by U. P. Act XIII of 1975 i, e. Land Laws Amendment Act, Section 219 of Land Revenue Act conferred powers on the Board as well as the State Government to frame rules under certain orders. So far as the State Government is concerned, powers were conferred upon it to revise orders in respect of nonjudicial proceedings, but so far as the Board is concerned, revisional powers are conferred upon him in all cases of judicial nature. Section 219 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act reads as under: 219. Revision before the Board : The Board may call for the record of any case decided by any subordinate court, and if the subordinate court appears (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it in 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 as it thinks fit. After the amendment, powers of the State Government to revise nonjudicial orders were taken away while powers of the Board for revision in respect of case decided by any subordinate court were maintained. 2. Under the Z. A. and L. R. Act the revisional powers of the Board were similar except that the Board is empowered also to call for the record of any proceeding before any subordinate court apart from that of any suit. Section 333 of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act reads as under : 333. 2. Under the Z. A. and L. R. Act the revisional powers of the Board were similar except that the Board is empowered also to call for the record of any proceeding before any subordinate court apart from that of any suit. Section 333 of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act reads as under : 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 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 in law, or (b) to have failed to ecercise 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. The revisional powers under the Land Revenue Act are thus exercisable against an order passed in a case deciding that case which in certain matters may include part of a case which may be a case by itself. While under the Z. A. and L. R. Act Board has powers to revise orders passed in any suit by a subordinate court or proceedings taken by it. 4. The word 'court' has not been defined under U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act but Appendix III of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Rules makes reference to the right of appeal or revisional court and the said Appendix mentions the court of Assistant Collector, Commissioner as well as the Board of Revenue. 5. Ordinarily 'court' is a place where justice is rendered. Although the word 'court' has been defined in the Indian Evidence Act, but same is not exhaustive as the said definition has been given only for the purposes of Indian Evidence Act. Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act reads as under: 3. Court includes all Judges and Magistrates, and all persons, except arbitrators, legally authorised to take evidence. Although the word 'court' has been defined in the Indian Evidence Act, but same is not exhaustive as the said definition has been given only for the purposes of Indian Evidence Act. Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act reads as under: 3. Court includes all Judges and Magistrates, and all persons, except arbitrators, legally authorised to take evidence. In order to constitute a court in the strict sense of the term, an essential condition is that the Court should have, apart from having some of the trappings of a judicial tribunal, power to give a decision or a definitive judgment which has finality and authoritativeness which are the essential tests of a judicial pronouncement. 6. There is a difference between the 'court' and quasijudicial tribunal. In Virindar Kumar vs. State of Punjab ( AIR 1956 SC 153 ), it was observed: It may be stated broadly that what distinguishes a Court from a quasijudicial tribunal is that it is charged with a duty to decide disputes in a judicial manner and declare the rights of parties in a definitive judgment. To decide in a judicial manner involves that the parties are entitled as a matter of right to be heard in support of their claim and to adduce evidence in proof of it. And it also imports an obligation on the part of the authority to decide the matter on a Consideration of the evidence adduced and in accordance with law. When a question therefore arises as to whether an authority created by an Act is a Court distinguished from a quasijudicial tribunal, what has to be decided is whether having regard to the provisions of the Act it possesses all the attributes of a Court. So far as 'Revenue courts' are concerned, they have been defined in U. P. Land Revenue Act, Section 4 (8) of U. P. Land Revenue Act defines 'Revenue Court', which reads as under : Revenue Court means all or any of the following authorities (that is to say), the Board and all Members thereof, Commissioner, Additional Commissioner, Collectors, Additional Collectors, Settlement Officers, Assistant Settlement Officers, Record Officers, and Assistant Record Officers and Tahsildars. The word 'Revenue Officer' is also fined in Section 4 (9) of the Act and the same reads as under: Revenue Officer means any officer employed under this Act, in maintaining revenue records, or in the business of the land revenue. The word 'Revenue Officer' is also fined in Section 4 (9) of the Act and the same reads as under: Revenue Officer means any officer employed under this Act, in maintaining revenue records, or in the business of the land revenue. 7. Under the Act although the Commissioner is a Revenue court but he will not be a revenue court for the purposes of entire Land Revenue Act because wherever he is to work as administrative authority, specific provisions are contained in the Act. 8. Section 12 of the Land Revenue Act provides for appointment of Commissioners of divisions. It reads as under : 12. The State Government shall appoint in each division a Commissioner, who shall within his division exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred and imposed on a Commissioner, under this Act, or under any other law for the time being in force, and who shall exercise authority over all the revenue officers in his division. Section 189 of the Act provides for place for holding Court by the Commissioner while Section 191 confers power on the Board or the Commissioner to transfer cases or proceeding arising under the provisions of this Act, including partition cases, from any subordinate Revenue Court of Revenue Officer to any other court or officer competent to deal therewith. Section 210 provides that an appeal lies to the Commissioner from orders passed by a Collector or an Assistant Collector, first class or Assistant Collector Incharge or Tahsildar. 9. Commissioner under the Land Revenue Act is a court except in the matters in which he is to act as administrative officer in respect of certain matters provided in the U. P. Land Revenue Act itself. 10. Under the Scheme of U. P. Land Revenue Act, the authorities which are and will be deemed to be court, work in judicial capacity except where they are required to work in administrative capacity their work is of nonjudicial in nature and character convert the performance of judicial work or work deemed to be judicial will make the place where same is done and the authority doing it to be 'court'. 11. The term 'judicial' has not been defined in the Land Revenue Act or in U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act but as interpreted by courts, it has got two meanings. 11. The term 'judicial' has not been defined in the Land Revenue Act or in U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act but as interpreted by courts, it has got two meanings. It may refer to the discharge of duties exercisable by a judge or by justices in Court, or to administrative duties which need not be performed in Court but that will not make it a court because it only establishes that he is following a standard established by law. 12. In Cooper vs. Wilson (1937) 2 K. B. 309, it was observed : A true judicial decision presupposes an existing dispute between two or more parties, and then involves four requisites; (1) the presentation, (not necessarily orally) of their case by the parties to the dispute; (2) if the dispute between them is a question of fact then ascertainment of the fact by means of the evidence adduced by the parties to the dispute and often with the assistance of argument by or on behalf of the parties on the evidence; (3) if the dispute between them is a question of law, the submission of legal argument by the parties, and (4) a decision which disposes of the whole matter by finding upon the facts in dispute and application of the law of the land to the facts so found, including where required a ruling upon any disputed question of law, In Bouvier's Law Dictionary, the term 'Judicial' has been denned thus : The term is used to describe generally those modes of action which appertain to the judiciary as a department of organized government, and through and by means of which it accomplishes its purposes and exercises its peculiar powers, 13. A Tribunal may be court though it may have trapping of court but by law or by legal fiction the Tribunal can be deemed to be a 'court' and order passed by it will partake the nature of an order passed by a 'court' which can be subjected to appellate or revisional jurisdiction of superior court like any other order passed by a 'court'. A legal fiction assumes the existence of a fact which does not really exist. It is a legal assumption that a thing is free which is either not free or which is probably as false as free. A legal fiction assumes the existence of a fact which does not really exist. It is a legal assumption that a thing is free which is either not free or which is probably as false as free. It is by legal fiction or deeming clause proceedings which are nonjudicial could be taken as judicial and Tribunals or authorities before whom there is same lis and decide certain right, title or interest in property etc., could be 'court' for the purposes legal fiction makes it so even though it may not be 'court' as such. 14. In view of paragraph 911 as amended in exercise of statutory powers referred to above the proceedings before Commissioner who otherwise is court under U. P. Land Revenue Act having been deemed to be judicial proceedings, the same is with a definite purpose. These proceedings viz. proceedings under sections 173 and 174 of U. P. Land Revenue Act which till date were nonjudicial proceedings were made judicial proceedings and though the Commissioner for this purpose will be deemed to be acting as 'court.' 15. The proceedings taken by the Commissioner under section 173 of U. P. Land Revenue Act would be judicial or deemed to be judicial proceedings. Sections 173 and 174 of Land Revenue Act analogous to which is Rule 2851 of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Rules reads as under : 173. Application to set aside sale for irregularity etc. At any time within thirty days from the date of the sale, application may be made to the Commissioner to set aside the sale on the ground of some material irregularity or mistakes in publishing or conducting it; but no sale shall be set aside on such ground unless the applicant proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that he has sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity or mistake. 174. Order confirming or setting aside sale; On the expiration of thirty days from the date of the sale, if no such application as is mentioned in Section 172 or 173 has been made, or if such application has been made and rejected, the Commissioner shall pass an order confirming the sale ; and, if such, application under section 173 is made and allowed, the Commissioner shall pass an order setting aside the sale. Every order under this section shall be final. Every order under this section shall be final. In view of the fact that the Commissioner is to be deemed revenue court for the purposes of deciding objections under sections 173 and 174 of U. P. Land Revenue Act, the matter of recovery of arrears and the order passed by the Commissioner will be amenable to the revisional jurisdiction to the Board of Revenue under section 219 of U. P. Land Revenue Act. 16. The U. P. Land Revenue Act will not apply to the areas in which U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act applies and as such U. P. Land Revenue Act is generally confined to the urban areas while in respect of rural areas U.P.Z.A. and L. R. Act is applicable. Chapter X of U, P. Z. A. and L. R. Act deals with the land revenue and Section 279 deals with the procedure for recovery of an arrear of land revenue. Section 284 deals with the attachment, lease and sale of holding while section 286 deals with the power to proceed against interest of defaulter in other immovable property. Section 294 of the Act confers power on the State Government to make rules for various matters connected with realisation of arrears and arrears of land revenue. 17, Some what (sic) to Sections 173 and 174 of U. P. Land Revenue Art, the State Legislature has framed Rule 285I, 285J and 285K under U. P. E. A. and L. R. Act which read as under : 285I. At any time within thirty days from the date of the sale, application may be made to the Commissioner to set aside the sale on the ground of some material irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting it, but no sale shall be set aside on such ground unless the applicant proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that he has sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity or mistake. (ii) The order of the Commissioner under this rule shall be final. 285J. (ii) The order of the Commissioner under this rule shall be final. 285J. On the expiration of thirty days from the date of sale if no such application as is mentioned in Rule 285H or Rule 285I, has been made or if such application has been made and rejected by the Collector, or the Commissioner, the Collector shall pass an order confirming the sale after satisfying himself that the purchase of land in question by the bidder would not be in contravention of the provisions of Section 154. Every order passed under this rule shall be final. 285K. If an application under rule 285I is made within the time allowed therefor, ail claims on the ground of irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting the sale shall be barred ; Provided that nothing contained in this rule shall bar the institution of a suit in the civil court for the purposes of setting aside a sate on the ground of fraud. Subsection (27) of Section 3 of U. P. Z. A, and L. R. Act provides definition given in the Land Revenue Act. Same reads as under ; 3 (27). words and expressions, underproprietor, subproprietor, revenue, mahal. Assistant Collector, Assistant Collector in charge of subdivision. Commissioner, Board, Tahsildar and miner, not defined in this Act and used in the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1901 (U. P. Act III of 1901), shall have the meaning assigned to them in that Act. Earlier the Collector was also included in it but by way of amendment made in the year 1974 the word 'collector' was taken out from it. The Commissioner is a court under Land Revenue Act as referred to above. Consequently, the Commissioner will be deemed a revenue court within the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act except where he acts in administrative capacity may it be acting as a quasijudicial authority. There is specific provision of revision before the Board of Revenue under section 333 of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. As such revision and proceedings arising out of orders passed under U. P. Z, A. and L. A. Act will lie before the Board of Revenue under the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act and not under U. P. Land Revenue Act. As such revision and proceedings arising out of orders passed under U. P. Z, A. and L. A. Act will lie before the Board of Revenue under the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act and not under U. P. Land Revenue Act. The Commissioner for the purposes of deciding objections under section 173 and 174 is deemed to be acting as revenue court under Land Revenue Act and proceedings taken by him are judicial proceedings. The question will be whether the proceeding taken under U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Rules will be deemed judicial proceedings and the Commissioner will be deemed to be a Court when the proceedings in this behalf under both the Acts are judicial. 18. Rule 285I as extracted above indicates that the Commissioner is to adjudicate certain rights and interest of the parties in respect of immovable property. The Commissioner is to decide as to whether there was any irregularity which was material in nature or there was mistake in publishing or conducting the sale for which purpose a procedure is prescribed and in case the Commissioner comes to the conclusion that such things existed, he is to set aside the sale. The order so passed by the Commissioner has been made final. Obviously the proceedings so taken by the Commissioner are judicial in nature. Though it could be said that the Commissioner is not sitting as a court to decide the same, and there is no specific provision In this behalf, the Commissioner will be deemed to be sitting in the court and the order passed by the Commissioner will be amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue under section 333 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act which is analogous to Section 219 of U. P. Land Revenue Act. 19. A single Judge of this court took the view that there was some inconsistency in Indu Engineering and Textiles Ltd. case (supra) and earlier decision on the same point in Sudama Prasad vs. State of U.P.(1968 RD p.88) and referred the matter to the higher bench and this is how the division bench took cognizance of the case in Nihal Singh vs. Board of Revenue (1987 RD 308). In Indu Engineering's case (supra) the question was whether Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act applies to these proceedings and the Commissioner has jurisdiction to enlarge the time during which objection can be filed. There is no dispute that Indian Limitation Act will apply before any court of law. The Division Bench was of the view that there was no inconsistency in the two judgments. The Division Bench did not take notice of the fact that this matter has been referred to the larger bench. The bench was of the view that no revision lies to the Board of Revenue under section 219 of Land Revenue Act. Obviously in regard to the proceedings under U. P. Z. A. and L. R Act and the Rules framed thereunder, revision will lie under section 333 of the Act and not u/s 219 of Land Revenue Act and it appears that the Division Bench did not notice this distinction. The division bench took into consideration paragraph 911 and 912 of Revenue Manual and held that these paragraphs do not in terms apply to the instant case but the classification made in the Revenue Manual is on the whole sound and according to the division bench hearing of case before the Commissioner assumes the character of quasijudicial in nature and the same does not alter the essense of proceedings as a whole. 20. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Commissioner while deciding the objection under Rule 285I of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Rules will be a 'court' as such and the proceedings taken before him will be deemed judicial proceedings as such and the Commissioner who otherwise is a court under U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act will be deemed to be a court We are accordingly of the view that the cases of Indu Engineering (supia) and Nihal Singh (supra) were not correctly decided and are overruled. Reference answered accordingly.