The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of Section 218 and Section 219 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, and the influence of the amendment by U. P. Act No. XX of 1997 on the power of revision and reference.

( 1 ) HEARD counsel for the petitioner.

( 2 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the proceedings of Revision No, 41 of 1992, Ramshiromani v. Raj Murat, under Section 218 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act. The counsel for the petitioner has alternatively submitted that a direction be issued to the revisional court to decide the revision expeditiously. A revision has been filed by Ram Shiromani, i. e. , respondent No. 5 before the commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional officer. Machhli Shahr, in case No. 16 under Sections 33/39 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid revision was filed under Section 218 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act. He has submitted that Section 218 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act has been deleted by U. P. Act No. XX of 1997, hence there is no provision of Section 218 in the statute Book. The Commissioner has no jurisdiction to proceed with the aforesaid revision. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the above, the proceedings of the revision be quashed.

( 3 ) I have considered the submission of the counsel for the petitioner. The provisions of Sections 218 and 219 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, as existed prior to amendment by U. P. Act No. XX of 1997, were as follows :

"218. Reference to the Board.--The Commissioner, the Additional Commissioner, the Collector, the Record Officer or the Settlement Officer may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings held by any officer subordinate to him for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order passed and as to the regularity of proceedings, and, tf he is of opinion that the proceeding taken or order passed by such subordinate officer should be varied, cancelled or reversed, he shall refer the case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Board and the Board shall thereupon pass such orders as it thinks fit. 219. Revision before the Board.--The Board may call for the record of any case decided by any subordinate court, and if the subordinate court appears : (a) to have exercised a Jurisdiction not vested in it in law : or (b) to have failed to exercise a Jurisdiction so vested ; or (c) to have acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material Irregularity. the Board may pass such order as it thinks fit. "

( 4 ) BY U. P. Act No. XX of 1997, provision of Section 218 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act was deleted and provision of Section 219 was substituted. Section 219 of the said Act as amended by u. P. Act No. XX of 1997 is quoted below :

"219. Revision.-- (1) The Board or the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner or the collector or the Record Officer, or the Settlement Officer, may call for the record of any case decided or proceeding held by any revenue court subordinate to him in which no appeal lies or where an appeal lies but has not been preferred, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order passed or proceeding held and if such subordinate revenue court appears to have (a) exercised a Jurisdiction not vested in it by law. or (b) failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) acted in the exercise of Jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the Board or the commissfoner or the Additional Commissioner or the Collector or the Officer, or the Settlement officer, as the case may be, pass such order in the case as he thinks fit. (2) If an application under this Section has been moved by any person either to the Board, or to the Commissioner, or to the Additional Commissioner, or the Collector or to the Record Officer or to the Settlement Officer, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by any other of them. "

( 5 ) FROM the aforesaid provision, it is clear that earlier no power of revision wa