Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh,J.:- Counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2 is taken on record. 2. The petitioner does not intend to file rejoinder affidavit, hence I proceed to decide the matter. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 4. The petitioner who claims to be landless lady was allotted land in Khasra plot No.2463 measuring 1 Bigha 10 Biswa situated in village Jamo Pargana Gaura Jamo Tahsil Musafirkhana, District Sultanpur in pursuance to the provisions contained in U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952 (in short, 1952 Act). The allotment was done in the year 1966 and the petitioner's name was mutated in the revenue records. 5. It appears that later on, the District Magistrate on finding that the land in question is situated in village Jamo and the petitioner belonged to village Lalupur Dhabia, issued notice under Section 15-A of the 1952 Act for cancellation of the lease. The reason, assigned in the notice was that the land could not have been allotted to the petitioner who belongs to other village and not of the village Jamo where the land is situated. The petitioner submitted her reply and stated that she was rightly allotted land in the year 1966 by the Bhoodan Yagna Samiti as there was no statutory bar in the 1952 Act or rules framed thereunder. However, the Addl. District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) by the impugned order dated 3.2.1984 (Annexure No.5 to the writ petition) has set aside the allotment. The petitioner along with others preferred revision before the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad who too rejected the revision on the ground that it was not maintainable. The order passed by the Addl. District Magistrate has thus become final. 6. While assailing the impugned order, it has been submitted by the petitioner's counsel that in the year 1966 when the land was alloted to the petitioner by the Bhoodan Yagna Samiti, there was no statutory bar for the persons who reside in other villages. The only criteria was that the person concerned should be land less person. Attention of this Court has been invited to Section 14 of the Act. Under Clause (b) of sub Section (4) of Section 14 of U.P. Act No.10 of 1975, notified on 21.1.1975, Sub Section 3 was omitted and Sub Section (4) was added. The only criteria was that the person concerned should be land less person. Attention of this Court has been invited to Section 14 of the Act. Under Clause (b) of sub Section (4) of Section 14 of U.P. Act No.10 of 1975, notified on 21.1.1975, Sub Section 3 was omitted and Sub Section (4) was added. Clause (b) of Sub Section (4) provides that the land situated situate in one village shall, as far as possible, be granted to persons residing in that very village. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention to a Division Bench's judgment of this Court reported in [1986 UPLBEC 1248] Brij Kishore and others versus Atirikt Zila Adhikari, Kanpur and others. 8. In the case of Brij Kishore(supra), the controversy with regard to allotment of land is of the year 1968. It has been observed by the Division Bench of this Court that in the year 1968, the Act as it stood, does not provide that the person concerned should a poor labour and belongs to the same village. Relevant portion from the judgment of Brij Kishore (supra) is reproduced as under : "In the case of Matoley v. State of U.P., reported in 1986 ALJ 645 in Division Bench of this Court took the view that Section 14 of the Act as it stood in the year 1956 enabled the Samiti to settle the land vesting in it with landless persons. The section neither specified that such landless person had also to be agricultural labour nor did it provide that they had to be residents of the district in which the concerned land was located. We also find that Section 14 of the Act as it stood in 1968 did not provide that before a landless person could qualify for the grant, he must also be a poor labour. The said Division Bench also held that under Section 15-A the question whether the grant made in favour of the grantee was regular or not, the provision of the Act as it stood at the time when the grant was made, has to be looked into. The requirement that the grantee should be a landless agricultural labour was not there in the year, 1968. At that time any land less person irrespective of the vocation which he was following and the place where he was presiding was eligible for the grant. The requirement that the grantee should be a landless agricultural labour was not there in the year, 1968. At that time any land less person irrespective of the vocation which he was following and the place where he was presiding was eligible for the grant. The requirement that in order to qualify for the grant the landless person should also be agricultural labour was introduced in Section 14 of the Act for the first time in the year, 1975. Following the Division Bench decision in Matoley's case we are clearly of opinion that the Additional Collector was not justified in cancelling the grant made in favour of the petitioners on the ground that they did not qualify for it as poor agricultural labour residing in the village." 9. Thus, from a plain reading of Section 14 coupled with the judgment of Division Bench in the case of Brij Kishore(supra), it is evident that when the land in question was alloted to the petitioner, condition with regard to residence was not in statute book. The only criteria was that the person should be a landless person. The land could have been allotted to a person who belongs to other village. 10. Learned Addl. District Magistrate while passing the impugned order has not taken into account the provisions contained in the Act as existing in the year 1966. Otherwise also, Clause (b) of Sub Section (4) of Section 14 added in the year 1975 provides that the land situate in one village shall as far as possible be granted to the person residing in that very village. Meaning thereby that some preferential treatment should be given to the person residing in the same village while allotting the land under the Act, that too with effect from 1975. 11. So far as the present controversy is concerned, it related back to the year 1966, hence in view of the statutory provisions existing at the relevant time and keeping in view the judgment of this Court in the case of Brij Kishore (supra), the allotment of land to the petitioner does not seem to suffer from any impropriety or illegality. 12. The Additional District Magistrate has not taken into account while passing the impugned order the statutory provisions as existed in the year 1966. He has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. 12. The Additional District Magistrate has not taken into account while passing the impugned order the statutory provisions as existed in the year 1966. He has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. The Additional Commissioner has also not interfered on merit on the basis of the statutory provisions contained in the Act. 13. In view of above, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 3.2.1984, passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) and the order dated 30.11.1985, passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad as contained in Annexures 5 and 6 to the writ petition with consequential benefits.