S. RAFAT ALAM, J. :- In all the aforesaid writ petitions the controversy is common and the order of the Additional Collector passed in a proceeding under Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 1950 Act), is under challenge on the ground that he has no jurisdiction or authority under Section 198 (4) of the Act to exercise the power of Collector and thus, the order of cancellation of allotment of land in favour of the petitioners being without jurisdiction, is to be set aside. During the course of argument the Honble Single Judge having been confronted with two different views of the Benches of coordinate jurisdiction, in the case of Shiv Avtar v. Nabi and others, reported in 1995 ACJ 1313 : 1996 RD 190 : (1996 AIHC 3628) and in the case of Brij Kishore and others v. Atrikta Ziladhikari and others, reported in 1986 ALJ 1248, referred the following questions vide order dated 21-12-2001 to a Larger Bench :-

(1) When under Section 198(4) of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, the power of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector; and

(2) Which of the Division Bench i.e., 1996 RD 190-Shiv Avtar v. Nabi and others or 1986 ALJ 1248-Brij Kishore and another v. Atrikta Ziladhikari, Kanpur and others laid down the correct law?

2. Consequently, Honble the Chief Justice under Chapter V Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court referred the above questions to the Full Bench consisting of three Honble Judges.

In Writ Petition Nos. 40986 of 2001 and 40983 of 2001, the order of the Additional Collector setting aside the allotment/lease of agricultural land in favour of the respondents in exercise of power under Section 198 (4) of 1950 Act have been set aside in the appeal by the Commissioner and in revision by the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue in the impugned order has relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Shiv Avtar v. Nabi and others : (1996 AIHC 3628) (supra) wherein it has been held that under Section 198 (4) of 1951 Act the power of cancellation of agricultural lease can only be exercised by the Collector. Therefore, the contention before the Honble Single Judge in these two writ petitions were that in the case of Shiv Avtar v. Nabi and others (supra) the earlier Division Bench of this Court in the case of Brij Kishore and others v. Atrikta Ziladhikari and others : (1986 ALJ 1248) (supra) has not been noticed nor the provisions contained in Section 14-A of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short 1901 Act) has taken note of, which clearly contemplates that the Additional Collector will be treated as Collector for the purposes of 1950 Act while exercising the power of the Collector and thus, the Additional Collector can exercise power of Collector under Section 198 (4) of 1950 Act because he acts as Collector in the said proceeding, whereas in the remaining writ petitions the order of cancellation has been challenged on the ground that the Additional Collector cannot exercise jurisdiction of Collector under Section 198 (4) of 1950 Act and thus, the order impugned are without jurisdiction. Since the writ petitions involve common point, they were clubbed and heard together by the Honble Single Judge. The Honble Single Judge found that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Avtar v. Nabi and others : (1996 AIHC 3628) (supra) has not considered the provisions of Section 14-A (4) of 1901 Act nor noticed the earlier Division Bench judgment in the case of Brij Kishore and others v. Atrikta Ziladhikari and others : (1986 ALJ 1248) (supra) wherein it was held that an Additional Collector is empowered to exercise the functions of Collector in view of the provisions contained in Section 14-A (3) of 1901 Act. This is how the aforesaid two questions are before us.

3. We have heard Sri R. B. Singhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 40986 of 2001 and 40983 of 2001; Shri S. K. Chaturvedi, learned