( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner dated 11-1-1955.

( 2 ) AN application under Section 27 of Act 10 of 1947 was filed by the grand-father of Samokhi lal, opposite party 2 for reinstatement of his possession. In those proceedings a compromise was arrived at between Kishan Lal and the petitioner in the present petition, Kalika Prasad under which, four plots were given to him. During the pendency of those proceedings a bhumidhari sanad was obtained by Kalika Prasad applicant. Proceedings under Section 202, U. P. Zamindari abolition and Land Reforms Act were started. Those proceedings were stayed and on an application made by the opposite party the sanad granted to the applicant was cancelled by the Assistant Collector under Section 12, U. P. Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act, An appeal was preferred to the Additional commissioner Agra division against the order of the Assistant Collector cancelling the sanad and the Additional Commissioner by his order dated 22-11-1954, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Assistant Collector and maintained the order granting sanad to the applicant. Thereafter opposite party filed an application for review of judgment of the Additional commissioner, who by his order dated 11-1-1955, recalled his order dated 26-11-1954, and dismissed the appeal with costs. The order of the Assistant Collector cancelling the sanad was, therefore, maintained by the Additional Commissioner by his order dated 11-1-1955. By the present petition the order passed by the Additional Commissioner is sought to be quashed on the ground that there is no power given to the Court acting under the U. P. Agricultural tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act to review its own order. Section 12 of the Act provides that a declaration granted under Section 6 may, on the application of any person interested, be cancelled or modified by the Assistant Collector for any of the following reasons namely:

(a) that the declaration was obtained fraudulently by the making of a, false suggestion, or by the concealment from the Assistant Collector of something material to the case; (b) that the declaration was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant thereof, (c) that a decree or order passed by a competent Court in a suit or other proceedings with respect to the holding for which the declaration has been granted renders it proper that the declaration should be cancelled.

( 3 ) THE order passed by the Assistant Collector cancelling the original order has been filed as annexure b to the counter affidavit and from a perusal of the order it appears that the Assistant collector cancelled the sanad granted to the applicant on two grounds. Firstly he held that the compromise arrived at between Kalika Pd. applicant to the present petition and the opposite party during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 27 of the Act was never- acted upon between the parties and secondly, on the ground that in those proceedings the opposite parties were declared to be tenants in chief and Kalika Prasad was only recognised as a subtenant and consequently there was a declaration by a competent Court that the opposite parties were tenants-in-chief and the applicant could not be granted a sanad. On appeal the Additional Commissioner held that a compromise had been arrived at between kalika Prasad and the opposite parties under which four plots were retained by Kalika Prasad. He had obtained a declaration in respect of these plots and no fraud was committed by him in obtaining the sanad. Certainly that compromise acted as a bar to subsequent proceeding by samokhi Lal and Santokhi. The Court below did not correctly appreciate the situation in granting the relief to the respondents. Earlier in the judgment the Additional Commissione