JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri L.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Goswami, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 2. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel does not propose to file any counter-affidavit and states the this writ petition itself may be decided on its own merit on the basis of the existing facts. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 20.7.2009 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Banda in case No. 1 of 2008-09 and order dated 14.1.2013 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad in revision No. 62 of 2008-09. 5. vide order dated 20.7.2009, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Banda has approved the report of the Tehsildar, Banda for expunging the name of the petitioner from the revenue record and recording the same in the ceiling khata, whereas by the subsequent order dated 14.11.2013, the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.7.2009 has been dismissed by the Board of Revenue, Allahabad. 6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order impugned is without jurisdiction for the simple reason that the lease was granted to the petitioner under the provisions of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1960’), therefore, the Sub Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and the order, if any, could be passed either under Section 27 of the Act of 1960 or under sub-rule (4) of Rule 59 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1961’). 7. The facts giving rise to this case are that it appears, over the ceiling land, patta was granted to the petitioner’s society on 1.3.1969 for running poultry farm over an area measuring about 136 bigha 15 biswa and 3 biswansi. The details of the plots have been given in Annexure 2 to the writ petition (page 19 of the writ petition). 8. The details of the plots have been given in Annexure 2 to the writ petition (page 19 of the writ petition). 8. Later on, a case was initiated under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 by the Lekhpal, which was numbered as case No. 81, before the Tehsildar, Banda for expunging the name of the Society from the revenue record on the ground that the Society is no more in existence as the President of the Society, Gajraj Singh has already died and there is no existence of the Society in the name of Goharwa Kukkut Palan Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Further, no work of poultry farming is being performed over the leased land and the said land is now being used by Sri Ram Pal Singh, S/o late Gajraj Singh. 9. The aforesaid case was later on registered under Section 190 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1950’),and re-numbered as case No. 1 of 2008-09. In this case placing reliance upon the report Lekhpal, the Sub Divisional Officer has passed the impugned order dated 20.7.2009. 10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed revision stating therein that the Society is very well in existence and this order has been passed illegally without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, but the same has been dismissed. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order impugned is without jurisdiction as the same could not be passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer either while exercising power under Section 190 of the Act of 1950 or under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. His further contention is that the proceeding is itself barred in view of sub-section (6) of Section 27 of the Act of 1960. It is further contended that the valuable right was existing in favour of the Society and that has been taken away by the impugned order without affording an opportunity of hearing, therefore, the order impugned suffers from breach of principles of natural justice. 12. It is not in dispute that Goharwa Kukkut Palan Sahkari Samiti Ltd. was granted lease under the provisions of the Act of 1960. 12. It is not in dispute that Goharwa Kukkut Palan Sahkari Samiti Ltd. was granted lease under the provisions of the Act of 1960. In the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner it could be cancelled under sub-section (4) of Section 27 of the Act of 1960 and proceeding for cancellation could be initiated within the period provided under sub-section (6) of Section 27 of the Act of 1960, which has now become time barred, therefore, the order impugned is without jurisdiction. 13. Refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has contended that the provisions of Section 27 of the Act of 1960 is not attracted in the present case for the simple reason that the lease has not been cancelled on the ground of any irregularity in the process of granting lease, therefore, there is no question of applicability of sub-section (6) of Section 27 of the Act of 1960. 14. For appreciating the controversy, it would be appropriate to go through the provisions contained under sub-sections (1), (3), (4) and (6) of Section 27 of the Act of 1960, which read as under: “27. Settlement of surplus land.—(1) The State Government shall settle out of the surplus land in a village in which no land is available for community purposes or in which the land as available is less that 15 acres with the Gaon sabha of that village so however that the total land in the village available for community purposes after such settlement does not exceed 15 acres. The land so settled with the Gaon Sabha shall be used for planting trees, grwoing fodder or for such other community purposes, as may be prescribed. (2) * * * (3) Any remaining surplus land shall be settled by the Collector in accordance with the order of preference and subject to the limits, specified respectively in sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 198 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. (2) * * * (3) Any remaining surplus land shall be settled by the Collector in accordance with the order of preference and subject to the limits, specified respectively in sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 198 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. (4) The commissioner may of his own motion and shall, on the application of any aggrieved person, enquire into such settlement and if he is satisfied that the settlement is irregular he may after notice to the person in whose favour such settlement is made to show-cause- (i) cancel the settlement and the lease, if any and thereupon, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law or in any instrument, the rights, title and interest of the person in whose favour such settlement was made or lease executed or any person claiming through him in such land shall cease, and such land shall revert to the State Government; and (ii) direct that every person holding or retaining possession thereof may be evicted, and may for that purpose use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary. (5) * * * (6) The Commissioner acting of his own motion under sub-section (4) may issue notice, and an application under that sub-section may be made,- (a) in the case of any settlement made or lease granted before November 10, 1980, before the expiry of a period of seven years. (b) in the case of any settlement made or lease granted on from the said date, and or after the said date, before the expiry of a period of five years from the date of such settlement or lease or up to November 10, 1987, whichever be latter.” 15. From the bare reading of sub-sections (1), (3), (4) and (6) of Section 27 of the Act of 1960, it would transpire that the State Government shall settle out the surplus land in the village in which more land is available for community purposes or in which the land as available is less than 15 acres with the Gaon Sabha of that village and the land so settled with the Gaon Sabha shall be used for planting trees, growing fodder or for such other community purposes, as may be prescribed. In view of sub-section (3) of Section 27 of the Act of 1960, any remaining surplus land shall be settled by the Collector in accordance with the order of preference and subject to the limits, specified respectively in sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 198 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Sub-section (4) of Section 27 of the Act of 1960 provides that the Commissioner may of his own motion and shall, on the application of any aggrieved person, enquire into such settlement and if he is satisfied that the settlement is irregular he may after notice to the person in whose favour such settlement is made, cancel the settlement. Sub-section (6) of Section 27 of the Act of 1960 provides the limitation of seven years if the lease is of prior to 10.11.1980 and in remaining cases, five years. 16. The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the lease executed under the Act of 1960 could be cancelled only under sub-section (4) of Section 27 of the Act of 1960 by the Commissioner, subject to, cancellation proceeding was initiated within the time limit prescribed under sub-section (6) of Section 27 of the Act of 1960. In his submissions, since the lease was granted in the year 1969, therefore, the order impugned is without jurisdiction. 17. After going through the bare provisions contained under sub-section (4) of Section 27 of the Act of 1960, it is apparent that the Commissioner may cancel the lease on his own motion or on the application of any aggrieved person, if he is satisfied that there was any irregularity while granting lease. The case in hand is not a case where lease has been cancelled on the ground of irregularity in the process of grant of lease,therefore, I do not find any force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that action could be taken under sub-section (4) of Section 27 of the Act of 1960. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the lease granted to the petitioner could neither be determined nor cancelled under the provisions of the Act of 1950 by the District Magistrate. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the lease granted to the petitioner could neither be determined nor cancelled under the provisions of the Act of 1950 by the District Magistrate. 18. Here, from the perusal of the impugned order, it transpire that the case was registered under Section 190 of the Act of 1950 on the basis of the reports of Lekhpal, Revenue Inspector and Tehsildar, who reported that the President of the Society, Gajraj Singh has already died and the Society, named as Goharwa Kukkut Palan Sahkari Samit Ltd., is no more in existence and the son of the President, Sri Ram Pal is in unauthorised possession over the land in dispute. 19. The question would be as to whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Collector was competent to initiate such proceeding and if initiated, whether the order impugned passed by him is in consonance with the provisions contained under Section 190 of the Act of 1950. Section 190 of the Act of 1950 talks about the extinction of the interest of a Bhumidhar with non-transferable right in certain eventuality. The procedure for declaring the extinction of the interest of a Bhumidhar has been given under Rule 172 of the Rules of 1952 and the consequences of such extinction of right has been given under Section 194 of the Act of 1950. for appreciating the controversy, these provisions are reproduced hereinunder: Sections 190 and 194 of the Act of 1950 “190. for appreciating the controversy, these provisions are reproduced hereinunder: Sections 190 and 194 of the Act of 1950 “190. Extinction of the interest of a bhumidhar with non-transferable rights: (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 172, the interest of a bhumidhar with non-transferable rights in a holding or any part thereof shall be extinguished - (a) when he dies having no heir entitled to inherit in accordance with the provisions of this Act; (b) when the holding has been declared as abandoned in accordance with the provisions of Section 186; (c) when he surrenders his holding or part thereof; (cc) when the holding or part thereof has been transferred, let out or used in contravention of the provisions of this Act; (d) when the land comprised in the holding has been acquired under any law for the time being in force relating to the acquisition of land; (e) when he has been ejected in accordance with the provisions of this Act; or (f) when he has been deprived of possession of his right to recover possession is barred by limitation. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply mitatis mutandis to asamis also.” “194. Land Management Committee to take over land after extinction of interest therein.—The Land Management Committee shall be entitled to take possession of land comprised in a holding or part thereof it : (a) the land was held by a bhumidhar, and his interest in such land is extinguished under Clause (a) or Clause (aa) of Section 189 or Clause (a), Clause (b), Clause (c), Clause (cc) or Clause (e) of Section 190; (b) * * * (c) the land being land falling in any of the clases mentioned in Section 132, was held by an asami and the asami has been ejected or his interest therein have otherwise extinguished under the provisions of this Act.” 20. Section 194 of the Act of 1950 talks about the taking of the possession by Land Management Committee after extinction of interest of bhumidhar. The procedure for having possession has been prescribed under Rule 172 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1952’), which reads as under: Rule 172 of the the Rules of 1952. “172. The procedure for having possession has been prescribed under Rule 172 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1952’), which reads as under: Rule 172 of the the Rules of 1952. “172. Section 230 (2)(i)- (1) An application under Section 194 for declaration of the extinction of tenure-holder’s rights shall be filed in the Court of the Assistant Collector in charge of the Sub-Division by the Land Management Committee in whose local jurisdiction the extinction has occurred. Where on the application of the Land Management Committee or on facts coming to his notice otherwise, the Assistant Collector is satisfied that there is a prima facie, case for declaration of the extinction of the tenure-holder’s rights under Section 194, he shall issue a proclamation in Z.A. Form 57 and where the tenure-holder is alive, a copy of the proclamation shall be served on him in person asking him to show-cause why the declaration in question should not be granted. (2) The Assistant Collector shall, on the date fixed in the proclamation, and after personal service, if required, has been effected, proceed to make such inquiry as he deems necessary. (3) If after inquiry, he comes to the conclusion that a declaration in favour of the Land Management Committee should be made, he shall make a declaration to that effect and specify the numbers of the plots with their respective areas of which the Committee is entitled to take a possession. The possession shall then be delivered to the Committee on behalf of the Gaon Sabha in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 154.” 21. The possession shall then be delivered to the Committee on behalf of the Gaon Sabha in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 154.” 21. From the bare reading of Section 190 of the Act of 1950, it would transpire that subject to the provisions of Section 172, which talks about succession in the case of a woman holding of interest inherited as a widow, mother, daughter, etc., the interest of a bhumidhar with non-transferable rights in a holding or any part thereof shall be extinguished, when he dies having no heir entitled to inherit in accordance with the provisions of this Act, when holding has been declared abandoned in accordance with Section 186, when he surrenders his holding or part thereof, when the holding or part thereof has been transferred, let out or used in contravention of the provisions of this Act, when the land comprised in the holding has been acquired under any law for the time being in force relating to the acquisition of land, when he has been ejected in accordance with the provisions of this Act, etc. 22. The procedure for declaring extinction of the interest of a Bhumidhar has been given in Rule 172 of the Rules of 1952, according to which, for declaration of extinction of the tenure-holder’s right, an application has to be filed in the Court of Assistant Collector in-charge of the Sub-Division by the Land Management Committee, in whose local jurisdiction, the extinction has occurred. On such application or on facts given to the Assistant Collector notice otherwise if he satisfied that there is a prima facie case for declaration of an extinction of the tenure-holder’s right under Section 194, he shall issue a proclamation in ZA Form 57 and where the tenure-holder is alive, a copy of the proclamation shall be served on him in person asking him to show-cause why the declaration in question should not be granted. 23. 23. There are other requirements as detailed in sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 172 of the Rules of 1952, which need not be discussed in detail for the simple reasons that in this case, every thing has been done only on the basis of the report of the revenue authorities without taking recourse as provided under sub-rule (1) of Rule 172 of the Rules of 1952, which empowers an Assistant Collector to declare extinction of a tenure-holder’s right, that too, on an application of the concerned gaon sabha or even in a suo motu proceeding. Assuming here the order impugned has been passed in a suo motu proceeding, in that eventuality too, the issuance of notice is lacking. 24. It is settled that when the statute provides to do a thing in a particular manner, then that thing has to be done in that very manner. Here sub-rule (1) of Rule 172 of the Rules of 1952 provides that before extinction of the right of a tenure-holder, he has to be noticed and the notice part is missing. Therefore, the order impugned has been passed against the statute itself, under which power has been exercised. 25. The matter may be examined from another angle too. It is not in dispute that the Society was granted lease under the provisions of the Act of 1960, therefore, either cancellation of lease or determination of the lease on the breach of conditions of lease could be done under the provisions of the said Act. Since the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that lease could only be cancelled under sub-section (4) of Section 27 of the Act of 1960 has already been repealed, the question would be, as to, for the desired action, on the allegations made against the petitioner, is there any other provision under the Act of 1960 to cancel or determine the lease. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 59 of the Rules of 1961 talks about the determination of the lease or the breach of conditions of the lease, which reads as under: “(4) If the lessee commits a breach of any terms and conditions of the lease, the settlement or the lease shall determine and the land shall revert to the State Government.” 26. Here, in this case, since the provisions for cancellation or determination of the lease has already been given under the Act of 1960, therefore, in my considered opinion, the procedure contained under the provisions of the Rules of 1952 for extinction of the interest of a Bhumidhar could not be invoked. 27. In view of the foregoing discussions, I am of the considered opinion that the order impugned is without jurisdiction. The view taken by me finds support from the judgment of the Apex Court in State of U.P. and others v. Roshan Singh and others, 2008(2) ADJ 379 (SC), where the Apex Court has observed as under: “.... the inherent powers of the Court are not to be used for the benefit of a litigant who has remedy under the CPC. Similar is the position vis-a-vis other statutes. The object of Section 151 CPC is to supplement and not to replace the remedies provided for in the CPC. Section 151 CPC will not be available when there is alternative remedy and same is accepted to be a well-settled ratio of law. The operative field of power being thus restricted, the same cannot be risen to inherent power. The inherent powers of the Court are in addition to the powers specifically conferred to it. If there are express provisions covering a particular topic, such power cannot be exercised in that regard. The section confers on the Court power of making such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice of the Court. Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked when there is express provision given under which relief can be claimed by the aggrieved party. The power can only be invoked to supplement the provisions of the Code and not to override or evade other express provisions. The position is not different so far as the other statutes are concerned. Undisputedly, an aggrieved person is not remediless under the Act.” 28. Further, assuming the authority was competent to pass such order under the provisions of the Act of 1950, in that eventuality too, the order impugned is bad for non-compliance of the statutory provisions contained under sub-rule (1) of Rule 172 of the Rules of 1952. 29. In both the ways, the order impugned cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 29. In both the ways, the order impugned cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.7.2009 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Banda in case No. 1 of 2008-09 and order dated 14.1.2013 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad in revision No. 62 of 2008-09 are hereby quashed. However, the order passed by this Court in this writ petition will not preclude the respondents to proceed in accordance with law by initiating a fresh proceeding.