By the Court.—A learned Judge of this Court has referred the matter to the Division Bench in view of the conflicting decisions of this Court in Kali Shanker Dwivedi v. Board of Revenue and others, 2000 (18) LCD 1401, and Sri Ram v. Board of Revenue, U.P. and others, 1999 JIR 647.

2. The question involved is regarding the jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner Allahabad Division to decide the Revision under the provisions of the amended Section 219 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and in order to appreciate the controversy, it would be relevant to reproduce the unamended and the amended Sections 218 and 219 of the Act.

3. Sections 218 and 219 of the Act prior to its amendment by U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1997 which came into force w.e.f. 18th August, 1997 read 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 if 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. However, by the aforesaid Amendment Act, Section 218 was omitted and Section 219 was substituted and the substituted Section reads as follows :

“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 sub-ordinate to him in which no appeal lies or where an appeal lies but has not been preferred, for the purposes of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order passed or proceeding filed and if such subordinate revenue Court appears to have :

(a) exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or

(b) failed to exercise its jurisdiction so vested, or

(c) acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity,

the Board or the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner or the Collector or the Record Officer, or the Settlement Officer, as the case may be, may 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 to 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. We must also reproduce Section 10 of the 1997 Amendment Act which is a transitory provision :

“10. Transitory Provisions.—Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act all cases referred to the Board under Section 218 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, or under Section 333-A of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 as they stood immediately before the commencement of this Act and pending before the Board on the date of such commencement shall continue to be heard and decided by the Board as if this Act has not been enacted.”

6. In the present case, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 28th February, 1996 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Karchanna district Allahabad, the petitioner preferred a Revision under