JUDGMENT : Chandra Kumar Rai, J. 1. Heard Mr. V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Manvendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pradeep Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4/ Gaon Sabha and Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that plot no.114 area 0.417 hectare is situated at Village- Bharuhana, District-Mirzapur. The aforementioned plot originally belongs to one Munna Lal Sonkar and after his death his six sons became owner of equal share in the plot in question. One Babu Nandan son of Munna Lal Sonkar sold his entire share (1/6 share) by means of registered sale deed alleged to be executed on 11.11.2003 in favour of respondent no.11/ Rajendra Kumar Tripathi. Respondent no.11 applied for mutation on the basis of aforementioned sale deed which was allowed vide order dated 21.7.2006 but on the restoration application filed by Panna Lal mutation order dated 21.7.2006 was recalled and mutation application was rejected, accordingly, name of original tenant was restored. The sale deed alleged to be executed on 11.11.2003 was challenged in Civil Suit no.1054 of 2016, Computerized Case No.1501054 / 2016 by Gulab son of Babu Nandan & another impleading Rajendra Kumar Tripathi and Others as defendants. The aforementioned civil suit was decreed vide judgment and decreed dated 24.8.2021 by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No.2, Mirzapur cancelling the sale deed dated 11.11.2003. The order dated 24.8.2021 has attained finality. Legal heirs of Babu Nandan accordingly, executed a registered sale deed on 18.8.2012 in favour of the petitioner in respect to plot no.114 area 0.417 hectare (3652 square fit). On the basis of registered sale deed executed on 18.8.2012 in favour of the petitioner, the name of the petitioner was accordingly, recorded in the proceedings under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 vide mutation order dated 22.2.2013. In respect to the sale deed dated 11.11.2003 executed by the Babu Nandan in favour of Rajendra Kumar Tripathi, a proceeding has been registered under Section 166 /167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act before Collector and an order dated 24.8.2015 was passed by respondent no.2/ Collector, Mirzapur vesting the land in question in State. In respect to the sale deed dated 11.11.2003 executed by the Babu Nandan in favour of Rajendra Kumar Tripathi, a proceeding has been registered under Section 166 /167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act before Collector and an order dated 24.8.2015 was passed by respondent no.2/ Collector, Mirzapur vesting the land in question in State. Against the order dated 24.8.2015 petitioner filed a revision before respondent no.1, which has been dismissed under the impugned order dated 26.2.2016, hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner for the following reliefs: "i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 26.2.2016 passed by Respondent no.1/ Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad in Revision No.2638 of 2015- "Bhaggan Devi Vs. Collector Mirzapur"- (Annexure no.11 to the writ petition) and order dated 24.8.2015 passed by the respondent no.2/ Collector, Mirzapur (Annexure No.9 to the writ petition). ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to create third party right over the land in dispute i.e. plot no.114, area 0.417 hectare situated at village- Bharuhana, tahsil-Sadar, District-Mirzapur and to maintain status quo in respect of nature and possession of the land in dispute." 3. This Court vide order dated 16.12.2016 entertained the matter and granted interim protection for maintaining status quo. 4. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in the instant writ petition. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sale deed alleged to be executed by Babu Nandan in favour of Rajendra Kumar Tripathi has been cancelled by the Civil Court vide judgement and decree dated 24.8.2021, as such, the plot in question cannot be vested in State on the basis of sale deed alleged to be executed by Babu Nandan in favour of Rajendra Kumar Tripathi. He further submitted that legal heirs of the Babu Nandan have executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner and petitioner is accordingly, recorded in the revenue records in the place of vendor, as such, vesting the plot in question in favour of State on the basis of sale deed alleged to be executed by Babu Nandan in favour of the Rajendra Kumar Tripathi, which has been cancelled by the Civil Court is wholly illegal. He further submitted that the order vesting the land in State by Collector is also illegal in view of the ratio of law laid down by this Court in the case reported in 2012 (116) R.D. 69 (Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Others) as well as Sudheer Kumar Jain Vs. State passed in Writ- C No.18585 of 2023 . He further submitted that the petitioner's vendor and petitioner belong to same community, as such, there is no illegality in the mutation order passed in favour of the petitioner on the basis of sale deed executed by her vendor. He further submitted that the petitioner is in possession on the basis of sale deed executed in his favour. 6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent- Gaon Sabha submitted that no interference is required against the order passed by respondent nos.1 & 2 and writ petition is liable to be dismissed as there was violation of the mandatory provision in respect to execution of the sale deed dated 11.11.2003. 7. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that the sale deed executed by Babu Nandan in favour of respondent no.11/ Rajendra Kumar Tripathi on 11.11.2003 has been cancelled by Civil Court vide judgement and decree dated 24.8.2021, which has attained finality. There is also no dispute about the fact that legal heirs of Babu Nandan have executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 18.8.2012 and petitioner is accordingly, recorded in the revenue record on the basis of sale deed in her favour vide mutation order dated 22.2.2013. There is also no dispute about the fact that under the impugned order the property has been vested in State in respect to the sale deed executed by Babu Nandan in favour of respondent no.11/Rajendra Kumar Tripathi. 9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the operative portion of the judgement and decree passed by the Civil Court in the suit filed by the Gulab son of Babu Nandan in respect to the sale deed dated 11.11.2003 will be relevant, which is as under: "IN THE COURT OF Addl. Civil Judge(J.D) Court no 2 AT, Mirzapur Presided Over by SUSHRI AVANTIKA PRABHAKAR Original Suit/ 1501054/2016 10. Civil Judge(J.D) Court no 2 AT, Mirzapur Presided Over by SUSHRI AVANTIKA PRABHAKAR Original Suit/ 1501054/2016 10. Perusal of the decree of Civil Court fully demonstrate that the sale deed dated 11.11.2003 has been cancelled by the Civil Court. It is also material that mutation order dated 21.7.2006 was already recalled vide order dated 13.7.2007 and mutation application was rejected. The sale deed which has been executed in favour of the petitioner by legal heirs of Babu Nandan is in accordance with law as both parties belongs to same community and on the basis of sale deed executed by the legal heir of Babu Nandan in favour of the petitioner, petitioner is accordingly, recorded in the revenue records. 11. So far as vesting the land in State by Collector is concerned, this Court has held in the case of Rakesh Kumar (supra) & Sudheer Kumar Jain(supra) that the order vesting the land in State cannot be passed by the Collector. 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. 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." 12. In the instant matter impugned order dated 24.8.2015 vesting the plot in dispute in State has been passed by the Collector which is illegal, as such, the impugned order dated 24.8.2015 vesting the land in State cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 26.2.2016 passed by respondent no.1 and order dated 24.8.2015 passed by respondent no.2 are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside. 14. The writ petition stands allowed and the petitioner's entry on the basis of mutation order passed by the Tahsildar on 22.2.2013 is affirmed. 15. No order as to costs.