JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, M. 1. This larger Bench is constituted under orders of Hon'ble Chairman, Board of Revenue, Lucknow, because one of us bad made a reference that formulated opinion of Hon'ble Member R.P. Gupta in 1991 AWC 3 is suspect. In that he rules that where fishery rights are transferred on a lease executed by SubDivisional Officer, no revision is competent under Section 333/333A, Z.A. and L.R. Act. Since the view of a single Member hangs, constitution of a Division, instead of Larger Bench, is appropriate. Nonetheless, we shall address to our task. The reference, in explicit terms, is not formulated by referring Member; we do as below: (1) Whether a revision under Section 333/333A ZA & LR Act is maintainable, against an order of SubDivisional Officer granting fishery rights under paragraph 62, Gaon Samaj Manual in view of G.O. No. 400/XIIII(3)77R2 dated May 22, 1981? (2) Whether registration of such a lease is compulsory? The reference arose in Revision No. 49 of 198889/Ghazipur: Gorakh Nath v. Ram Singhasan's going apace in court of referring Member. 2. Heard the counsel pro and con the revision. 3. The lease of fishing right in tanks is granted to eligible persons by Land Management Committee. The process of its execution and procedure of its cancellation is detailed in Rule 115S, ZA & LR Rules. Nonetheless on 2251981 a G.Oempowers SubDivisional Officers also to execute fishing leases in consultation with or without Land Management Committee The outstanding problem is: whether a lease executed by SubDivisional Officer is open to factual investigation and cancellation at the instance of an aggrieved person? If lease is cancelled or application is rejected by Collector, whether a revision will lie? In 1987 RD 287 Hon'ble Member S.K. Lakhtakia has mediated: there is no provision for cancellation of such a lease. The application will not at all lie. But Hon'ble Member R.P. Gupta in 1991 AWC (REV) 3 and 1990 Civil and Revenue Cases 15 elaborates that revision under section 333/333A ZA & LR Act is not competent but Collector has power of enquiry and cancellation; his order will be final. Learned counsel for revisionist urges that an application for cancellation is competent before Collector; also a revision is, sure because an order of Collector shall become final subject to revisional jurisdiction. The submission requires deeper reflection. 4. Two consideration support the view favouring cancellation. Learned counsel for revisionist urges that an application for cancellation is competent before Collector; also a revision is, sure because an order of Collector shall become final subject to revisional jurisdiction. The submission requires deeper reflection. 4. Two consideration support the view favouring cancellation. The prescribed proforma of conditions of a fishing lease issued under amended paragraph 602 (Ka) Gaon Sabha Manual, respects land more than O.5 acres, has one condition: number 1O, as below: 10If the allottee violates any of the conditions in the lease deed respecting fishing right, Gaon Sabha/Collector shall have the power of cancelling the lease in writing. Under what provision in Z,A, and L.R. Act such an action is supportable? Secondly, justice R.M. Sahai, J in 1984 RD 234 is insistent that forum for cancellation of such a lease is revenue and not civil court. Again, under what provision? How a condition and a formulated opinion will impinge has not received attention in subsequent reflection. In 1990 RD 14 Hirdi' Justice B.L. Yadava, J. greatly reasons that an application contemplated here is not sustainable under section 198 (4), ZA & LR Act, 5. On the other side, in Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 3376/1990 Hon'ble Justice B.L. Yadava, J Todi v. Board of Revenue decided on 18121990, not gone as yet in reports, is positively clear that Collector has no jurisdiction to cancel a lease regarding settlement of fishing rights by SubDivisional Officer. Also in Civil Misc. Writ No. 14861 of 1991, not as yet in law reports, decided on 11121991, Main (Uddin v. Board of Revenue, Hon'ble Justice S.R. Singh, J. records his opinion that revenue courts have no jurisdiction in the matter and it is only a civil court which may be competent to adjudicate upon right, title or interest of any of the parties. So the opinion of Hon'ble Member R.P. Gupta in 199C Civil and Revenue Cases 15 that Collector has jurisdiction to investigate and decide is not legally supportable in law. 6. More, we find cases in reports where on grant of fishing lease by SubDivisional Officer under paragraph 60 (2) (Kha) Gaon Samaj Manual, the aggrieved person has straightway gone in writ petitions to High Court 1984 AWC 7 (DB) (LB): 1984 (2) RD 296 is one where it decides the controversy between allottee and aggrieved person. 6. More, we find cases in reports where on grant of fishing lease by SubDivisional Officer under paragraph 60 (2) (Kha) Gaon Samaj Manual, the aggrieved person has straightway gone in writ petitions to High Court 1984 AWC 7 (DB) (LB): 1984 (2) RD 296 is one where it decides the controversy between allottee and aggrieved person. Furthermore, the same happens in 1992 RD 46 (HC) (DB).A writ petition by Gaon Sabha is directly heard and decided on merits as it respects a lease executed by SubDivisional Officer. In both, the question did not directly figure whether a revisional remedy is competent or not. Significantly, the writ petitions, were rot summarily dismissed on the enabling ground that alternative remedy of revision, in the first instance, have to be taken of. We are of opinion that in the absence of an order, conceived and articulated by a court of first instance: Collector, a revisional redress, always a second step in a moving process, is not available under section 333/333A, ZA & LR Act. 7. Whether registration of such a lease is compulsory? The opinion of Hon'ble Member R.P. Gupta rests on 1990 RD 394, HC. The colour of that legal precedent is different. In that, fishing rights agreement was in respect of a tank situate in Town Area, Jangipur. That is not so as it respects Gaon Sabha and under Rule 115S ZA & LR Rules. The purpose was not agricultural. It was held that registration is sine qua non to effectuate a contract of lease. But here the letting out of a tank is in furtherance of an agriculture purpose. U.P. Agriculture Credit Act, 1973 in section 2 has given a definition of agriculture purpose. This includes fishing right in Gaon Sabha land. That purpose is not undermined if beside the LMC, SubDivisional Officer is also empowered to execute the lease. These things being so, we are of opinion that registration of lease is not mandatory for validation of a lease. The opinion to the contrary postulated in 1991 AWC 3 is hereby overruled. 8. There is a point here which needs careful discrimination to avoid grave misapprehension: Rule 1158(1) (viii) (ii) proviso reads: that in the case of perennial tanks of three or more acres in area, the Land Management committee may, with the previous permission of the Assistant Collector, in charge of the subdivision concerned, grant a lease. 8. There is a point here which needs careful discrimination to avoid grave misapprehension: Rule 1158(1) (viii) (ii) proviso reads: that in the case of perennial tanks of three or more acres in area, the Land Management committee may, with the previous permission of the Assistant Collector, in charge of the subdivision concerned, grant a lease. 9. Land Management Committee is to take previous permission of SubDivisional Officer when tank is of three or more acres in area. Obviously, when the area of tank is less, no previous permission is requisite. However, when area is more and permission of SubDivisional Officer is accorded or is refused, the order constitutes a judicial proceeding. A revision is maintainable under section 333/333A ZA & LR Act as held by Hon'ble Justice B.L. Yadav, J. in 1985 RD 8. 10. Where State Government through Collector issues directions under section 12 6 ZA & LR Act read with rule 115A and 115B the provisions of rule 115S would cease to apply. Say, Collectors its in appeal against Tahsildar's order, upturns a lease granted by Land Management Committee under Rule 115S ZA Rules or Commissioner in revision gives a direction in deciding, say, for auctior of tank by Tehsildar, hold and behold: the action has moved from Rule 115S to under paragraph 60 (2) (kha) Gaon Samaj Manual. Obediently, Tahsildar will have to auction the tank. Against this action and auction, no legal redressal is: no factual investigation, no cancellation of lease no, revisional interference. Obediently Land Management Committee does, then redressal is intact. SubDivisional Officer may exercise his right with or without prior, resolution of Land Management Committee. Where SubDivisional Officer is the centerpiece in lease execution, no legal remedy is. Where Land Management Committee is the centerpiece, a legal redressal is available. The roles of Chairman, Land Management Committee, Tahsildar and Sub Divisional Officer in the equation, so often enough, are hideously mixed up so that in the resulting confusion of facts, the reach of provision applicable thereto is often distracting, And the Cross ruff between the academic and the practical players goes on constantly. 11. In sum, when land Management Committee executes under rule 115/S, Tahsildar has no role; SubDivisional officer is only to accord permission, if area is of 3 or more acres. 11. In sum, when land Management Committee executes under rule 115/S, Tahsildar has no role; SubDivisional officer is only to accord permission, if area is of 3 or more acres. (2) When SubDivisional Officer is the centerpiece in lease execution under paragraph 60 (2) (kha) Gaon Samaj Manual, Land Management Committee may or not pass a prior resolution; Tahsildar's is a supporting role. But SubDivisional Officer is under law entitled to do alone and apart; a sole authority: 1992 RD 46 (HC) (DB). (3) When Collector picks up a role in a judicial proceeding or at his instance SubDivisional Officer takes an action, the action comes under paragraph 60 (2) (Kha) Gaon Samaj Manual. 12. The position in the first situation sets our problem. What is the concern when Tahsildar or SubDivisional Officer with no assigned roles, do this or that in lease execution. It is, then, imperative to set concrete facts in order and perspective because the facts of fish are not always to be picked up from fishmonger's slab. What role A or B has under a specific provision? It is only, then, that treatmentof facts will be in legitimate focus and application of provision apt enough. 13. In the time span Land Management Committee has alone exercised powers from July 1, 1952 to 2751981, 39(29) years. From this date Land Management Committee and SubDivisional Officer are executing leases of fishing rights; sometimes in isolation, sometimes in just a position and at times in conflict. 14. The counsel for Gorakh Nath has made numerous submissions. Chief contention is that SubDivisional Officer executes an agricultural lease under Section 122C(4) ZA Act; this is not open to cancellation only because Section 122C(7) ZA Act states that his order shall be final and the provisions of Section 333 and Section 333A shall not apply in relation thereto He urges that order of allotment of fishing lease is revisable because of absence of an inhibiting provision as above. We do not agree. The chief reason is: under Section 122C(6)ZA Act Collector enquires whether allotment is regular or not; then revisional redress is barred. Here an enquiry by Collector is not contemplated; more of it in paragraph 6 et seq infra. 15. We do not agree. The chief reason is: under Section 122C(6)ZA Act Collector enquires whether allotment is regular or not; then revisional redress is barred. Here an enquiry by Collector is not contemplated; more of it in paragraph 6 et seq infra. 15. We are of firm opinion that if Collector has passed an order to the prejudice of leaseholder, he is under an obligation to rectify his own egregious error on a review under Order 47 Rule (1) CPC. Also we agree with the contention of counsel that an order without jurisdiction by Collector is open to impeachment in revision for correction in the same way as an order by a court having jurisdiction. This principle is irreproachable. 16. In view of the foregoing, we are of opinion that fishing leases executed by SubDivisional Officer is not open to factual investigation and cancellation by Collector at the instance of an aggrieved person. So no revision is competent under Section 333/333A ZA & LR Act. Secondly, registration is not essential. The opinion expressed in 1991 AWC 3 is partly affirmed. The opinion of bench be returned to referring Member for disposal of revision accordingly.