JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri A.N.Bhargava alongwith Sri G.C.Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjai Goswami, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 2. Through this writ petition prayer has been made to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 3.5.2006 passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Lucknow in suo motu Revision No. 813 of 2005-06. 3. The aforesaid revision has been maintained with respect to six cases, i.e. 1. Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Sri Ram and others; 2. Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Nagar Nigam; 3. Avon Homes Pvt. Ltd. v. Nagar Nigam and others; 4. Vinod Kumar v. Nagar Nigam and others; 5. Vinod Kumar and others v. Nagar Nigam and 6. Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Nagar Nigam. 4. The petitioner is concerned with Case No. 4/2000 (Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Nagar Nigam, Moradabad) by which on the agreement of the parties the exchange of land under Section 161 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short the Act of 1950) was allowed with respect to Gata No. 245 M measuring 0.802 Hec. situated in Village Harthala, Ahatmali, Moradabad by expunging the name of Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. through its Directors, Sri Mohd. Umar Farooq son of Sri Mohd. Rashid and Sri Mohd. Akbar son of Sri Mohd Arshad and recording the name of Nagar Nigam and over Plot Nos. 386 measuring about 0.085 Hec., 460 measuring about 0.243 Hec., 469 measuring about 0.474 Hec. total of three plots measuring about 0.802 Hec. ordered for recording the name of Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. through its Directors, Sri Mohd. Umar Farooq son of Sri Mohd. Rashid and Sri Mohd. Akbar son of Sri Mohd Arshad. 5. It appears that in certain other cases too land of Nagar Nigam was exchanged with other persons. Learned Member, Board of Revenue in suo motu proceeding under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short the Act of 1901) has entertained the aforesaid revision and stayed the order of exchange dated 11.9.2000 passed in Case No. 4/2000 and transmitted the matter before the Board of Revenue, Allahabad after the order of the Chairman, Board of Revenue, Allahabad for adjudication. 6. 6. Challenging the aforesaid order, the present writ petition has been filed in which on 26.5.2006 the following order was passed: “It is submitted by Sri Shashi Nandan learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Board or Revenue could not exercising powers under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act pass order in revision arising out of proceedings under Section 161 of the U.P. Zamindari and Land Reforms Act. It is also submitted that in view of the division of powers between the Board of Revenue at Allahabad and Lucknow, the Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow could not have taken suo motu cognisance and has passed the impugned order. Standing counsel represents respondents 1, 2 and 5. Nagar Nigam is represented by Sri Prem Chand. The respondents are granted three weeks time to file counter-affidavit. The petitioner will have three weeks thereafter to file rejoinder-affidavit. List the writ petition on 24.7.2006. Until the date of next listing, further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned order dated 3.5.2006 before the Board of Revenue shall remain stayed.” 7. Pursuant thereto counter-affidavit has been filed by the State stating therein that the revision could be entertained under Section 219 of the Act, 1901 at Lucknow too as initial order of exchange was contrary to the provisions of the law. 8. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties on 23.11.2015 the following order was passed by this Court: “The petitioner’s case is limited only with regard to the decision dated 11.9.2000 passed in Case No. 4/2000 by the Sub Divisional Officer Moradabad. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid order was passed under Section 161 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) therefore, the revision could not be entertained by the learned Board of Revenue sitting at Lucknow as the Member, Board of Revenue has only power with respect to the cases relating to the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and not the cases arising out of the proceeding of the Act. Prima facie, I find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned standing counsel seeks time to obtain instruction. As prayed put up on 26th November, 2015 in the additional cause list.” 9. Prima facie, I find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned standing counsel seeks time to obtain instruction. As prayed put up on 26th November, 2015 in the additional cause list.” 9. Pursuant thereto instructions have been obtained and decision of the Board dated 9.10.1990 has been shown to the Court, relevant portion of which is reproduced herein below: ^^bykgkckn ds U;kf;d lnL;ksa ds chp dk;Z foHkktu Jh ukFkw yky] lnL;] dh lsokfuo`fRr ds i'pkr` muds e.Myksa dk dk;Z Jh ,0;w0 [kku lnL; dks gLrkUrfjr fd;k x;k FkkA Jh ,0;w0 [kku us dk;kZf/kdkj n'kZkrs gq;s dk;Z ds cjkcj iqufoZHkktu dk vuqjks/k fd;k FkkA QyLo:i jktLo ifj"kn bykgkckn ds U;kf;d lnL;ksa ds chp dk;Z ds iqufoZHkktu gsrq ,d cSBd vkt fnukad 20&9&1990 dks lEiUu gqbZ ftlesa fuEu fu.kZ; fy;s x;sA 1& ;fn fdlh lnL; us izkjfEHkd Lrj ;k izFke vihy@fuxjkuh esa dksbzZ fu.kZ; fn;k gS rks jktLo ifj"kn esa ,sls okn muds fyad lnL; ds le{k lwpukc) fd;k tk;saxsA 2& iwoZ fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj Hkw&jkTkLo vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr okn y[kuÅ esa rFkk tehankjh mUewyu rFkk Hkwfe lq/kkj vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr okn bykgkckn esa lqus tk;saxsA y[kuÅ fLFkr lnL;ksa ds v/;{k ds chp dk;Z dk caVokjk v/;{k ds vkns'kkuqlkj gksxkA ^^ 10. From the perusal of the aforesaid instructions it is apparent that the cases relating to the provisions contained under the Act of 1950 the Board of Revenue at Allahabad will have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon whereas the cases arising out of the proceeding initiated under the Act of 1901 the Board of Revenue at Lucknow will have jurisdiction to decide the cases. 11. Sri Goswami, learned additional chief standing counsel, appearing for the State submits that the revision would be maintainable against the order where there is no provision of appeal or where there is provision of appeal but remedy of appeal has not been availed. Therefore, it cannot be said that revision is not maintainable. In his submission the language used under Section 333 of the Act, 1950 and Section 219 of the Act, 1901 are almost identical, therefore, it cannot be said that the revision against the order of exchange would not lie. 12. Therefore, it cannot be said that revision is not maintainable. In his submission the language used under Section 333 of the Act, 1950 and Section 219 of the Act, 1901 are almost identical, therefore, it cannot be said that the revision against the order of exchange would not lie. 12. There is substance in the submission of the learned Additional Chief Standing counsel but the question would be as to whether revision would lie or suo motu power can be exercised by the learned Member, Board of Revenue sitting at Lucknow while invoking powers under Section 219 of the Act, 1901 or it would lie under Section 333 of the Act, 1950 at Allahabad in view of the conferment of the jurisdiction as finds mention in Board Resolution dated 9.10.1990, which, according to the respondent has not yet been diluted and this jurisdiction is literally followed at Lucknow as well as at Allahabad. Admittedly, here the proceeding of exchange under Section 161 of the Act of 1950 has been questioned, therefore, the Board of Revenue, Allahabad will have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon under Section 333 of the Act, 1950. Otherwise also the order passed under Section 161 of the Act, 150 is appealable and the appeal would lie before the Commissioner of the Division or any other authority prescribed in the Schedule, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue sitting at Lucknow, while exercising power under Section 219 of the Act, 1901 is without jurisdiction. It is settled that any order without jurisdiction is nullity. Reference may be made to the decisions of the Apex Court in Managing Director, Army Welfare Housing Organization v. Sumangal Services Pvt. Ltd., (2004)9 SCC 619 , Sarup Singh and another v. Union of India and another, (2011) 11 SCC 198 and a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Committee of Management Shri Jawahar Inter College and another v. State of U.P. and others, in Special Appeal No. 164 of 2012 decided on 25.1.2012. 13. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 3.5.2006 passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Lucknow in suo motu Revision No. 813 of 2005-06 in respect of the petitioner is hereby quashed. 13. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 3.5.2006 passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Lucknow in suo motu Revision No. 813 of 2005-06 in respect of the petitioner is hereby quashed. However, passing of this order will not preclude the State Government to avail such other remedies as available to it under law. ——————