Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1992 DIGILAW 1234 (ALL)

Arti Devi v. Lautoo

1992-09-14

BHAIRO PRASAD

body1992
JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, M. - The allotment of opposite party was challenged in a proceeding under Section 198 (2) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. That proceeding was decided by Sri Uma Dhar Dwivedi, S.D.O. Bansi, District Basti on 20.3.1976. Against that order of the S.D.O. Smt. Arti Devi and others filed a revision before the learned Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur dismissed the revision on 3.7.76. Against that order the revision was filed in this court as Revision No. 138 of 1975-76. That revision was dismissed by Sri R.S. Verma, the then learned Member, Board of Revenue vide his order dated 29.12.1983 on the ground that the opposite party No. 4 and 14 have died. The revisionist counsel has taken three weeks' time to file the substitution application. In spite of that no substitution application was filed. The counsel has stated that the revision should be dismissed as abated under Order XXII of Civil Procedure Code. The revision was dismissed. After that on 2.2.1984 the application was filed by another counsel to set aside the order dated 29.12.1983 and to allow the substitution application. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the record. 3. An application was moved before the Collector for the cancellation of the allotment. That application was not in the form of the proceeding as contemplated under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, therefore, the application was sent to Sub-Divisional Officer for administrative inquiry. During the pendency of the inquiry revision was filed before the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur in the pretext of the order of Sub-Divisional Officer, Bansi, Basti dated 20.3.1976. During the course of that revision an objection was raised that Sub-Divisional Officer has no power to conduct the proceeding under Section 198 (2) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The learned Commissioner has over-ruled that objection and held that the Sub-Divisional Officer is only conducting preliminary inquiry and the proceeding under Section 198 (4) shall be decided by the Collector. Therefore, he dismissed the revision on 3.7.1976, then this revision was filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, but on 29.12.1983 the revision was not pressed in spite of given of the time for three weeks for filing substitution application. The substitution application was also not filed, therefore, the revision was dismissed by the Board. Therefore, he dismissed the revision on 3.7.1976, then this revision was filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, but on 29.12.1983 the revision was not pressed in spite of given of the time for three weeks for filing substitution application. The substitution application was also not filed, therefore, the revision was dismissed by the Board. The restoration application and substitution application was filed on 2.2.1984 against that order dated 29.12.1983. The substitution application has been opposed by filing the counter affidavit by the opposite party. 4. Actually the Collector has entrusted to the Sub-Divisional Officer to make an administrative inquiry about the allotment made. No proceeding under Section 198 (4) of the Act has yet begun. This revision has been unnecessarily pending in courts. However the Collector Basti is directed to conduct the judicial proceeding under Section 198 (4) of the Act and if he is satisfied that there is irregularity in the allotment then after issue of show cause notice under Section 198 (5) should be issued and then to complete the inquiry in accordance with law. Revision against the administrative inquiry is pre-mature, therefore, there is no substance in this revision. However, I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the Opp. party that the judicial proceeding should be conducted before the court of the Collector or Addl. Collector who has only jurisdiction to conduct the judicial inquiry and to finalise the proceeding under Section 198 (4) of the Act. 5. In view of the above circumstances, I do not consider to set aside the order of my predecessor dated 29.12.1983. The record should be sent to the Collector for further action in accordance with the direct inns given above.