Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri Apura Hajela, for the petitioner and Sri Vishal Khandelwal and Standing Counsel, for the respondents. 2. Writ-C No. 21331 of 2013 has been filed, against the order of Additional Collector, Kasganj, dated 27.02.2013, canceling the patta dated 05.06.2009, granted to the petitioner, of plot 1978 (area 0.03 acre) of village Patiyali Dehat, pargana Patiyali, district Kasganj. 3. Writ-C No. 3435 of 2014 has been filed against the order of Additional Collector, Kasganj, dated 24.07.2013, recalling the order dated 27.02.2013 and referring the record of Case No. 10/15/12 to the Collector, for decision from his own level, in compliance of the order of this Court and order of Collector dated 19.10.2013, canceling the patta dated 05.06.2009, granted to the petitioner, of plot 1978 (area 0.03 acre) of village Patiyali Dehat, pargana Patiyali, district Kasganj. 4. In both writ petitions, subject matter of dispute is common between the same parties as such both writ petitions are heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. Writ -C No.- 21331 of 2013 has been filed, for setting aside the order of Additional Collector, Kasganj, dated 27.02.2013, which has now been recalled by Additional Collector, Kasganj, by order dated 24.07.2013 as such this writ petition has become infructuous. Order of Additional Collector, Kasganj, dated 24.07.2013, recalling the order dated 27.02.2013 and referring the record of Case No. 10/15/12 to the Collector, for decision from his own level, in compliance of the order of this Court, does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner and in fact this was grievances of the petitioner in Writ-C No. 21331 of 2013. Thus there is no need to set aside the order dated 24.07.2013. The petitioner alleged that this was a malafide act of Additional Collector, Kasganj. For that purpose, it will be referred and considered. 5. Plot 1978 (area 0.03 acre) of village Patiyali Dehat, pargana Patiyali, district Kasganj was recorded as new parti in the revenue record. Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi (respondent-6) filed an application dated 13.11.1987 before Sub-Divisional Officer, Patiyali, district Etah (now Kasganj) for allotment of this land to him for abadi purposes. On his application, a reports was called from the subordinate authorities. Lekhpal submitted his report dated 25.12.1987, recommending for grant of the patta, which was forwarded by Revenue Inspector, Naib Tahsildar and Tahsildar. Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi (respondent-6) filed an application dated 13.11.1987 before Sub-Divisional Officer, Patiyali, district Etah (now Kasganj) for allotment of this land to him for abadi purposes. On his application, a reports was called from the subordinate authorities. Lekhpal submitted his report dated 25.12.1987, recommending for grant of the patta, which was forwarded by Revenue Inspector, Naib Tahsildar and Tahsildar. Sub-Divisional Officer granted patta dated 30.01.1988 to Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi of plot 1978 (area 0.03 acre) of village Patiyali Dehat, pargana Patiyali, district Kasganj. 6. Subsequently, Sub-Divisional Officer granted another patta dated 05.06.2009 to Smt. Satya Prabha (the petitioner) of plot 1978 (area 100 squire meter) of village Patiyali Dehat, pargana Patiyali, district Kasganj. On the allegations, that in pursuance of patta dated 05.06.2009, possession over the allotted land was not given to the petitioner, she filed Writ-C No. 29345 of 2011 before this Court, which was disposed of, by order dated 30.05.2011, directing the petitioner to file a representation before respondent-4, who was directed to deliver possession to the petitioner over the land allotted to her within four weeks. The petitioner filed a representation on 11.06.2011 for delivery of possession over the allotted land along with certified copy of the order dated 30.05.2011, before Sub-Divisional Officer, Patiyali. Thereafter, she filed Civil Contempt Petition No. 974 of 2012, alleging that Sub-Divisional Officer, Patiyali had not complied with the order dated 30.05.2011. In this contempt petition, notice was issued to Sub-Divisional Officer, Patiyali on 27.02.2012, fixing 05.04.2012 for appearance. It is alleged that when notice of contempt petition was served, then Sub-Divisional Officer, Patiyali directed his subordinate authorities to deliver possession over the allotted land to the petitioner and possession was delivered on 29.03.2012 and representation of the petitioner was disposed of on 30.03.2012 and compliance affidavit was filed on 02.04.2012. 7. Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi (respondent-6) filed an application (registered as Case No. 10/15/12) under Section 122-C (6) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, on 02.04.2012, for cancellation of patta dated 05.06.2009 granted to the petitioner of the land in dispute, on the allegations that the land in dispute was already allotted to him on 30.01.1988 by Sub-Divisional Officer and in pursuance of allotment, he had raised construction over it. The land in dispute was not vacant on 05.06.2009, nor it was in possession of State of U.P. or Land Management Committee of village Patiyali as such its allotment to the petitioner on 05.06.2009 was illegal. Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi (respondent-6) also filed a suit (registered as O.S. No. 95 of 2012) on 03.04.2012 before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanshiram Nagar for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and Ram Kripal from interfering in his possession over plot 1978 (area 0.03 acre) of village Patiyali Dehat, pargana Patiyali, district Kasganj. Thereafter, Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi (respondent-6) filed Writ-C No. 19410 of 2012, for mandamus directing, the Collector to dispose of the application under Section 122-C (6) of the Act, within stipulated period and till disposal for maintaining status quo with regard to possession over the disputed land, which has been disposed of by this Court, by order dated 20.04.2012, directing the Collector to make spot inspection and find out the truth regarding allegations made by Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi and decide the application under Section 122-C (6) of the Act within a period of three months. 8. In appears that in routine manner, the case was transferred to Additional Collector, from the court of Collector. In spite of service, the petitioner did not appear before Additional Collector. Additional Collector called for a report from Sub-Divisional Officer, who submitted his report dated 28.08.2012, stating therein that file relating to the allotment of the land to Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi of the year 1987 was available in the office, which shows that plot 1978 (area 0.03 acre) of village Patiyali was allotted to Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi on 30.01.1988, in which he had constructed one room and some constructions up to plinth level and boundary wall. Subsequently, a joint application dated 02.06.2009 was moved by Bhaiya Lal son of Salig and Guddan son of Nanhe for allotment of plot 1978 for residential purposes, on which patta dated 05.06.2009 was granted to Smt. Satya Prabha, without making any spot inspection, although land in dispute was already in possession of Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi. Relying upon the evidence of Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi and report of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 28.08.2012, Additional Collector by order dated 27.02.2013 canceled the patta dated 05.06.2009 of the petitioner. 9. Relying upon the evidence of Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi and report of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 28.08.2012, Additional Collector by order dated 27.02.2013 canceled the patta dated 05.06.2009 of the petitioner. 9. The petitioner filed Writ C No. 21331 of 2013, against the order of Additional Collector, Kasganj, dated 27.02.2013, on the grounds that this Court, by the order dated 20.04.2012, directed the Collector to make spot inspection and decide the application under Section 122-C (6) of the Act as such Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to decide the application; Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi obtained the patta dated 30.01.1988 by manipulation as in the application dated 13.11.1987, it had been stated that one Smt. Munni Devi got vasectomy but in stead of granting patta to Smt. Munni Devi, it was granted to Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi; the revenue authorities recommended for grant of patta of plot 1078 but patta was granted on plot 1978; no proposal was made by Land Management Committee for grant of patta; Additional Collector found that granting patta to Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi was illegal, etc. This Court, by order dated 02.05.2013, directed the Collector to file his personal affidavit, giving reason as to why he himself had not decided the matter in compliance of the order of this Court dated 20.04.2012. However, no counter affidavit has been filed by the Collector in the aforementioned writ petition. In the meantime, Additional Collector, Kasganj, by dated 24.07.2013, recalled the order dated 27.02.2013 and referred the record of Case No. 10/15/12 to the Collector, for decision from his own level, in compliance of the order dated 20.04.2012. Thereafter, the Collector made spot inspection on 06.08.2013 and passed order dated 19.10.2013, canceling the patta dated 05.06.2009, of the petitioner. Hence Writ-C No. 3435 of 2014 has been filed. 10. The counsel for the petitioner submits that order dated 27.02.2013 was passed by Additional Collector, in utter disregard of the order of this Court dated 20.04.2012. When this Court, by order dated 02.05.2013 took serious note of the conduct of the Collector and directed him to file his personal affidavit, then Sub-Divisional Officer approached the Pradhan for filing recall application and the Pradhan filed recall application dated 05.07.2013, without resolution of Land Management Committee, on which, Additional Collector, by order dated 24.07.2013, recalled the order dated 27.02.2013 and referred the matter to Collector for decision. The Pradhan has filed his affidavit in this respect before this Court. The order dated 27.02.2013 was sub-judice before this Court, Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to recall this order. The recall application was filed before the Collector but order on it was passed by Additional Collector, without any notice to the petitioner. The Collector annoyed due to filing of the Writ -C No. 21331 of 2013, by the petitioner and order dated 02.05.2013, passed in it. As such, the Collector, by way of punishment, passed the order dated 19.10.2013, in a malafide manner. The Collector did not make spot inspection and the report relating to spot inspection has been prepared in the office, which is apparent as it is contrary to the report of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 28.08.2012. No reference has been made about the pendency of Writ C No. 21331 of 2013, and order dated 02.05.2013, passed in it, in the order of the Collector. Sub-Divisional Officer himself filed his affidavit in Civil Contempt Petition No. 974 of 2012 on 02.04.2012 stating therein that possession over the allotted land was given to the petitioner. In the circumstances, impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 11. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. One thing is apparent that the petitioner had not co-operated in the inquiry and trial either before the Additional Collector or before the Collector, in spite of the service of the notice to her. Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi (respondent-6) filed Case No. 10/15/12, under Section 122-C (6) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, on 02.04.2012, for cancellation of patta dated 05.06.2009 granted to the petitioner. The petitioner did not appear before the Court nor contested the matter, in spite of service of the notice. Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi (respondent-6) filed Writ-C No. 19410 of 2012, in which order dated 20.04.2012 was passed. It appears that although copy of the order was filed before Additional Collector, but no body insisted to refer the record to Collector for holding inquiry and trial at his own level, in compliance of the order dated 20.04.2012. Inadvertently the case was decided by Additional Collector. Now the petitioner is alleging malafide against Additional Collector and the Collector. In the absence of insistence or any prayer before Additional Collector for transferring the case to the Collector, allegation of malafide is not liable to be accepted. Inadvertently the case was decided by Additional Collector. Now the petitioner is alleging malafide against Additional Collector and the Collector. In the absence of insistence or any prayer before Additional Collector for transferring the case to the Collector, allegation of malafide is not liable to be accepted. At the most, it may be negligent act and not malafide. When the fact was brought to the notice of Additional Collector, he recalled the order dated 27.02.2013. Pendency of Writ-C No. 21331 of 2013 does affect the jurisdiction of Additional Collector to entertain recall application and pass any order on it. As stated above, the petitioner was not present at the time of passing the order dated 27.02.2013 as such no notice was required to be issued to her in the recall application. In any case, by recalling order dated 27.02.2013 no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. As admitted after recall the Collector issued fresh notice to the petitioner before passing the order dated 19.10.2013. 12. Land Management Committee is constituted under Section 28-A of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and Pradhan is its Chairman under Section 28-A (2). By virtue of Section 122-A (3) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, the Chairman is entitled to present any document on behalf of Land Management Committee. Pradhan, in his affidavit has stated that he had filed the recall application dated 05.07.2013 but on the direction of Sub-Divisional Officer. Sub-Divisional Officer is in-charge under Section 122-B and 122-C of the Act. As such the application moved by Pradhan on the direction of Sub-Divisional Magistrate was competent. In any case, as stated above, in Writ -C No.- 21331 of 2013, grievances of the petitioner was that the Collector ought to have decided Case No. 10/15/12, in compliance of the order of this Court dated 20.04.2012 and on this ground prayed for quashing of the order of Additional Collector, Kasganj, dated 27.02.2013. Now this order has been recalled by Additional Collector, Kasganj, by order dated 24.07.2013, realizing the mistake committed by him. Order of Additional Collector, dated 24.07.2013, does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. Now this order has been recalled by Additional Collector, Kasganj, by order dated 24.07.2013, realizing the mistake committed by him. Order of Additional Collector, dated 24.07.2013, does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. The arguments that as the recall application was entertained by the Collector as such Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to pass any order in the recall application is not liable to be accepted as 'Collector' includes 'Additional Collector' under U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 as well as U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 and Additional Collector exercises jurisdictions of the Collector under under both the Act. 13. The arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the Collector did not make spot inspection is not liable to be accepted. The Collector, in his spot inspection report dated 06.08.2013 noted measurements of the land in dispute and the constructions of Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi. For the reason that measurement does not tally with the measurements of the report of Sub-Divisional Officer, it cannot be said that the Collector had not made spot inspection. In the reports of Sub-Divisional Officer and the Collector both constructions of Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi was found on the spot. Thus although in the compliance affidavit, a possession report dated 29.03.2012 has been attached but actual possession of Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi remained on the spot as at no point of time he was dispossessed. 14. Admittedly, the petitioner was not given possession over the land allotted to her at the time of patta dated 05.06.2009. In the reports of the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Collector, Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi was found in possession of the land in dispute on the spot and his constructions were existing. It is also proved that Sub-Divisional Officer had granted patta to Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi on 30.01.1988. Irregularity or illegality committed in granting patta to Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi is not relevant in this proceeding as no application for cancellation of the patta dated 30.01.1988 was filed either by Land Management Committee or any other interested person within time. In case, Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi had occupied more area of the land than the area allotted to him, proper procedure was to take proceedings for his ejectment. Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to super impose another tenant over a tenant. In case, Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi had occupied more area of the land than the area allotted to him, proper procedure was to take proceedings for his ejectment. Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to super impose another tenant over a tenant. Findings of the Collector that on the date of allotment of the land to the petitioner, it was not vacant and no physical verification on the spot was made at that time in respect of possession over it do not suffer from any illegality. The Collector has not committed any illegality in canceling the patta of the petitioner dated 05.06.2009. The arguments that the order dated 19.10.2013 was passed by way of punishment in a malafide manner is not accepted as on merit, the petitioner has failed to satisfy that patta was rightly granted to her, adopting proper procedure. 15. So far as the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner that an area of 0.03 acre of plot 1978 was allotted to Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi, which comes to about 121 squire meter, while from report of the Collector it is proved that he had occupied 229.80 squire meter land and thus he had illegally occupied about 108 squire meter on the spot is concerned, as stated above, the proper procedure under the law for ejectment of Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi from the excess area occupied by him can be taken by the respondents. On the spot, the excess land has to be demarcated from the allotted land. But without ejecting Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi, from the excess land on the spot, super imposing another tenant was illegal. For allotment of the land, it ought to be in vacant possession of State of U.P. and Land Management Committee. On this ground alone, validity of patta of the petitioner cannot be upheld as before taking possession, allotment of the land was illegal. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussions, Writ - C No. 21331 of 2013 is dismissed as infructuous and Writ - C No. 3435 of 2014 is dismissed. _______________