The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section 218 of the U. P. L. R. Act and the impact of legislative amendments on the maintainability of revisions.

The question of law referred to this bench in March 1997 for decision is "whether a revision is maintainable under Section 218 of the U. P. L. R. Act against the order passed by S. D. O. /collector in recovery proceedings".

2. The necessity of this reference arose for determining the maintainability of Reference No. 7 (sale) of 1995-96 made by the Commissioner Gorakhpur in Revision No. 10/a-1993. In this case the revisionist had deposited 1/4 of the bid amount at the time of auction on 2-12-92 and the remaining 3/4 amount was also deposited on 14-12-92 within the prescribed time. Meanwhile the opposite party moved an application before the S. D. O. on 11-12-1992 for cancelling the auction alleging irregularities. The SDO cancelled the auction by his order dated. 18-12-92. The application of the revisionist for recalling this order was also rejected by the S. D. O. on 22-12-92. Whereupon he filed this revision before the Commissioner who recommended cancellation of the impugned order passed by SDO.

3. During the hearing of this revision, it was pointed out that two contradictory views had been expressed by the Board in two different cases. Whereas Sri N. M. Majmudar, Member in the case of Avinash Chand v. State of U. P. , 1992 R. D. 73, held that Commissioner/additional Commissioner has no jurisdiction to hear revision under Section 218 of the U. P. L. R. Act in a sale proceeding, in Nirankar Nath Tandon v. State, 1992 R. D. 424, Dr. A. N. Segal the then Chairman held that Commissioner/additional commissioner had power to take cognizance under Section 218 of UPLR Act in a sale case. Hence this reference.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the revisionist has contended that the Commissioner had power to hear the revision even in a sale matter under Section 218 prior to its deletion, as the word used in this section was any "officer" not "court" subordinate to him. The Commr. was well within his rights to make a recommendation to the Board prior to deletion of Section 218. On the other hand, it has been contended on behalf of the opposite party that a revision under Section 218 could lie only in a judicial proceeding. In support of the contention reliance has been placed on the full bench decision of Honble Allahabad High Court in Ram Swaroop v. Board of Revenue, 1990 RD 291, wherein it was held that the Commissioner while deciding the objection under Rule 285-I of UPZA & LR Rules is a Court and as such proceedings taken before him will be deemed to be judicial proceeding. Accordingly the order passed by the Commissioner will be amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue under Section 333 of the UPZA & LR Act which is analogous to Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act.

5. Thus it is well settled that a revision against the order passed by the Commissioner under Rule 285-I of the ZA & LR Rules is maintainable before the Board of Revenue. However, we may also add here that under Section 219 any order and not merely an order under Section 173 & 174 of the UPLR Act or under Rule 285-I of the UPZA & LR Rules, in a case decided or proceeding held by the Commissioner is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue in view of the amendment in Para 911 of the Revenue Manual in 1979 whereby proceedings taken before the Commissioner or orders passed by him in matters relating to recovery of arrears of land revenue or sums of money recoverable as arrears

of land revenue were made judicial proceedings. Any such order passed by the Commissioner was, therefore, clearly amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the Board.

6. The Full Bench judgment of the Honble High Court referred to above, however, does not deal with the point at issue in the present case, which is whether a revision against an order passed by SDO/collector in a sale proceeding was maintainable before the Commissioner under Section 218 before its deletion. To get an answe