ORDER : 1. Amendment application filed by learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record. In Re: Civil Misc. Amendment Application No.Nil of 2023 1. Office is directed to allot number to the instant application. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. In view of the averment made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the application is allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary amendment in the writ petition during course of the day. Order on Writ Petition 1. Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The writ petition is being heard and disposed of finally with the consent of the parties without inviting counter affidavit. 3. The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders impugned passed in Case No.403 of 2023 dated 31.3.2023 (Annexure No.13) by Additional Commissioner, Administration, Second, Region & District-Saharanpur and also the judgment and order dated 17.2.2023 in Case No.04669 of 2019 (Annexure No.12) passed by Upar-Zila Adhikari Prasasan, Saharanpur. ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents, validate the transaction/sale deed no.4578 dated 24.5.1985 pertaining to plot situated at Khasra no.497M area 0.0195 Hectare (233-1/3) out of area 2.048 at village-Dara-kot-tala Swad Bairun Pargana, Tahsil & District- Saharanpur, on payment of required fee. iii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. iv. Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner." 4. Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Arun Jain purchased the plot no.497M on 20.9.1982/2.5.1983. Petitioner purchased the plot of Khasra No.497M area 0.0195 hectare out of 2.048 hectare from Smt. Arun Jain. On 24.5.1983, one Israr Khan son of Jameel Khan alleged to have purchased the same plot no.497M area 0.0195 hectare out of area 2.048 hectare, situated at Village-Dara-kot-tala Swad Bairun Pargana, Tahsil & District-Saharanpur on 1.12.2015 from Smt. Arun Jain. Petitioner purchased the plot of Khasra No.497M area 0.0195 hectare out of 2.048 hectare from Smt. Arun Jain. On 24.5.1983, one Israr Khan son of Jameel Khan alleged to have purchased the same plot no.497M area 0.0195 hectare out of area 2.048 hectare, situated at Village-Dara-kot-tala Swad Bairun Pargana, Tahsil & District-Saharanpur on 1.12.2015 from Smt. Arun Jain. The mutation proceeding was initiated on the basis of registered sale deed executed in respect to the plot in dispute before the Tahsildar by Smt. Arun Jain, petitioner and Israr Khan, which were registered as Case Nos.T201709601012276, T201709601012278 & T20170960101630. Petitioner filed objection to the mutation application filed by Israr Khan on 6.6.2017. Naib Tahsildar vide order dated 24.8.2017 ordered to record the name of the petitioner over the land in dispute in the proceeding Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Israr Khan filed an application dated 8.9.2017 recalling the order dated 24.8.2017, which was allowed vide order dated 30.10.2017. The order dated 30.10.2017 was passed without notice and opportunity to the petitioner, accordingly, petitioner filed an application on 7.12.2017 for recalling the order dated 30.10.2017. Up-Ziladhikari, Saharanpur remanded the matter back before the Tahsildar on the ground of jurisdiction. Additional Collector, Saharanpur issued notice to Smt. Arun Jain & Shri Rajneesh Tripathi in respect to the proceeding pending pertaining to sale deed dated 20.9.1982/2.5.1983, petitioner moved an application in the pending proceeding that they may be impleaded and opportunity be given to contest the proceeding. Additional Collector, Saharanpur vide order dated 17.2.2023 rejected the objection filed by the petitioner. Petitioner challenged the order dated 17.2.2023 by way of revision which was heard and rejected by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 31.3.2023, hence this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is illegal and without jurisdiction. He further submitted that Additional Collector has no jurisdiction to pass the order in the proceeding under Section 166/167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act now under Section 104 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. He further placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2012 (116) R.D.69 (Rakesh Kumar Vs. He further submitted that Additional Collector has no jurisdiction to pass the order in the proceeding under Section 166/167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act now under Section 104 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. He further placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2012 (116) R.D.69 (Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Others) decided on 28.2.2012, in which it has been held that Assistant Collector First Class is the competent authority to decide any transaction of agricultural land void under Section 166 of the Act, if it is in contravention of Section 154 and 157-A of the Act or as a matter of fact of any provision of the Act. It has been further held that Collector or Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to pass the order in the proceeding under Section 166/167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act now under Section 104 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. He further submitted that this Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar (supra) has considered the provision of Section 3 (4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as well as the provision of Section 14, 14-A & 15 of U.P. Land Revenue Act while deciding the dispute regarding the jurisdiction under Section 166/167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act now under Section 104 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. He next submitted that in view of the ratio of law laid down in Rakesh (supra), the impugned order cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside. He further advanced argument even on the merit of the issue also in order to demonstrate that the impugned order vesting the land in State is illegal. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents submitted that the transaction is void as provided under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 but regarding the jurisdiction, Mr. Abhishek Shukla, A.C.S.C. cannot dispute the ratio which has been laid down in the Rakesh Kumar (supra) by this Court. He further submitted that on the point of jurisdiction, the matter can be remanded back before the competent authority to hear and decide the dispute afresh. 7. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. He further submitted that on the point of jurisdiction, the matter can be remanded back before the competent authority to hear and decide the dispute afresh. 7. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that Additional Collector, Saharanpur has passed the order vesting the land in dispute in State Government in proceeding under Section 166/167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act now under Section 104 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 9. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that Additional Collector, Saharanpur has passed the order vesting the land in dispute in State Government in proceeding under Section 166/167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act now under Section 104 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the writ petition, perusal of relevant portion of the impugned judgment dated 17.2.2023 passed by Additional Collector will be relevant, which is as follows: ^^vkns'k i=d U;k;ky; % vij ftykf/kdkjh] iz'kklu e.My % lgkjuiqj] tuin % lgkjuiqj] rglhy % lgkjuiqj okn la[;k %&04669@2019 daI;wVjhd`r okn la[;k %& D201909600004669 ljdkj cuke v:.k tSu varxZr /kkjk %& 104@105] vf/kfu;e% mRrj izns’k jktLo lafgr&2006 ftyk 'kkldh; vf/koDrk ¼jktLo½ lgkjuiqj ,oa izfroknhx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh cgl dks lquk x;kA i=koyh dk lE;d voyksdu fd;k x;kA i=koyh ds voyksdu ,oa ifj'khyu ls fofnr gS fd mi ftykf/kdkjh] lnj lgkjuiqj dh tkapk[;k fnukad 22-11-2019 esa Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd xzke njkdksVryk Lokn cS:u ijxuk o rglhy o ftyk lgkjuiqj esa fLFkr [kŒuaŒ 497e {ks=Qy 2-048 gsŒ es ls 0-0195 gsŒ ds iathd`r ys[ki= fnukad 20-06-1982@02-05-1983 ds fu"iknu esa /kkjk 168, mŒizŒtŒfoŒ vf/kfu;e dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gSA izfroknhx.k dh vksj ls ,slk dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS ftlls ;g Li"V gksrk gks fd iz'uxr ys[ki= fnukad 26-05-2015 ds fu”iknu esa /kkjk 168, mŒizŒ tehnkjh fouk'k vf/kfu;e dk mYya?ku u gqvk gksA tgka rd izfroknh i{k dk dFku gS fd /kkjk 104@105 mŒizŒ jktLo lafgr ds vUrxZr dk;Zokgh iks"k.kh; ugh gS] mfpr ugh gSA mDr okn mŒizŒ jktLo] 2006 ds izHkkoh gksus ds mijkUr izLrqr gksus ds dkj.k /kkjk 231 mŒizŒ jktLo lafgrk esa fn;s x;s izko/kkuksa ds vuq:i mŒizŒ jktLo lafgrk dh /kkjk 104@105 ds vUrxZr okn dh dk;Zokgh dh x;h gSA bl izdkj iz'uxr vUrj.k 'kwU; gSA mŒizŒtŒfoŒ vf/kfu;e O;oLFkk dh /kkjk 168, dk mYya?ku gksus ds dkj.k ;g Hkwfe vUrj.k ds fnukad ls lc Hkkj vkfn ls eqDr gksdj jkT; i{k esa fufgr ekuh tk,xhA vr% okn xzLr Hkwfe [kŒuaŒ 467e {ks=Qy 2-048 gsŒ esa ls 0-0195 gsŒ ds iathd`r ys[ki= fnukad 20-09-1982@02-05-1983 ds fu"iknu ls foi{khx.k dk uke [kkfjt dj lEifRr jkT; ljdkj ntZ fd;k tkdj jkT; ljdkj ds i{k esa dCtk fn;k tkuk fof/kuqdqy ,oa U;k;ksfpr gSA vkns’k mi;ZqDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij Hkwfe 497 es {ks=Qy 2-048 gsŒ esa ls 0-0195 gsŒ fLFkr xzke njkdksVryk Lokn cS:u ijxuk o rglhy o ftyk lgkjuiqj ls foi{khx.k ds uke dh izfof"V dks fujLr djrs gq, bl Hkwfe dks jkT; ljdkj ds uke dtZ fd;k tk, rFkk Hkwfe dk jkT; ljdkj ds i{k esa n[ky izkIr fd;k tk,A vkns'k dh izfrfyfi mi ftykf/kdkjh] udqM] lgkjuiqj dks vuqikyu gsrq izsf"kr dh tk,A i=koyh okn vkiwfrZ vfHkys[kkxkj esa lafpr dh tk,A fnukad& Qjojh] 17] 2023 ¼MkW vpZuk f}osnh½ vij dysDVj ¼iz'kklu½ lgkjuiqj^^ 10. Paragraph Nos.21 to 25 of the judgment rendered in Rakesh Kumar (supra) will be relevant for perusal, which is as under: "21. A plain and simple reading of Section 3(4) of the Act and Sections 14, 14-A and 15 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act makes it clear that the Collector includes Additional Collector as well as Assistant Collector and is authorised to discharge the powers and duties conferred upon him under the Act or in any other law in force. The aforesaid Acts do not confer upon the Collector the power to declare a transaction to be void under Section 166 of the Act being violative of Section 154 or 157-A of the Act. Such power is vested only in the Assistant Collector First Class who may be authorised by the State Government to discharge all or any of the functions of the Collector but converse to it is not permitted. The duties and functions assigned therein to the Assistant Collector First Class under law are not to be discharged by the Collector even though he may be the controlling authority of the Assistant Collectors First Class. He is not authorised to take over the functions assigned to the Assistant Collectors. Thus, Collector is not supposed to discharge the functions specifically assigned to the Assistant Collectors under the above two Acts including that of declaring a transfer to be void. 22. Apart from the above the initial order which was challenged in appeal before the Additional Commissioner was passed by the Assistant Collector First Class and, therefore, also on the order being set-aside in appeal, the matter ought to have been remanded to the Assistant Collector First Class. 23. Accordingly, I answer the question by holding that the Assistant Collector First Class is the competent authority to declare any transaction of agricultural land void under Section 166 of the Act, if it is in contravention of Section 154 and 157-A of the Act or as a matter of fact, of any other provision of the Act. 24. In such a situation, the Additional Commissioner committed an error of law in remanding the matter to the Collector. 25. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 27.8.2010 is modified to the extent that the matter stands remanded to the Assistant Collector First Class in place of the Collector as directed." 11. 24. In such a situation, the Additional Commissioner committed an error of law in remanding the matter to the Collector. 25. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 27.8.2010 is modified to the extent that the matter stands remanded to the Assistant Collector First Class in place of the Collector as directed." 11. Perusal of Rule 103 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 will be also relevant for perusal, which is as under: "(1) If a bhumidhar or an asami has transferred his interest in any holding or part thereof which is void under section 104, the Lekhpal shall promptly submit a report to the Sub-Divisional Officer containing particulars specified in rule 97(1). (2) On receipt of the report of the Lekhpal under sub-rule (1), or on information received otherwise, the Sub-Divisional Officer shall call upon the parties to the transfer to show cause, why action under section 104 read with section 105 should not be taken in respect of the land in question. (3) After hearing the parties and making such inquiries as may be considered necessary, if the Sub-Divisional Officer is satisfied that the transfer in question is void under section 104, he shall declare that- (a) the subject matter of such transfer shall vest in the State Government; (b) the trees, crops, well and other improvements existing on the holding or part shall vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances; and (c) the interests of the transferor as well as of the transferee stood extinguished, from the date of such transfer. (4) The Sub-Divisional Officer shall direct that the revenue records should be corrected accordingly and where the transfer in contravention of the provisions of the Code relates to a part of the holding, he shall also fix land revenue in respect of the part left with the transferor in accordance with Chapter XI of these rules. (5) Every order of the Sub-Divisional Officer under this rule shall be endorsed to the Samiti for necessary action. (6) Where any property referred to in section 105 has vested in the State Government, the Collector may evict any person in unauthorised occupation of such property and deliver possession thereof to the Gram Panchayat concerned." 12. (5) Every order of the Sub-Divisional Officer under this rule shall be endorsed to the Samiti for necessary action. (6) Where any property referred to in section 105 has vested in the State Government, the Collector may evict any person in unauthorised occupation of such property and deliver possession thereof to the Gram Panchayat concerned." 12. Rule 103 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016, as quoted above as well as ratio of law laid down in Rakesh Kumar (supra), clearly provides that Sub-Divisional Officer shall pass the order in the proceeding under Rule 104 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016, issue relating to vesting of the land in the State-Government. Admittedly, in the instant matter, the order impugned dated 17.2.2023 vesting the land in the State/Goan Sabha in the proceeding under Section 166/167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act now under Section 104 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been passed by the Additional Collector, which cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 13. Revisional Court has also failed to consider the point of jurisdiction, as such, revisional order also suffers from error of law. 14. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the impugned orders dated 31.3.2023 passed by Additional Commissioner, Administration, Second, Region & District-Saharnpur and order dated 17.2.2023 passed by Uppar-Zila Adhikari Prasasan, Saharanpur cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside. 15. The writ petition is allowed in part. The matter is remitted back for fresh decision of Case No.04669 of 2019, Computerized Case No.D201909600004669 by the competent authority in the light of the observation made in the body of the judgment after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as other parties to the dispute in accordance with law.