The main legal point established is that the Chief Revenue Officer has the authority to exercise the functions of the Collector in matters under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Original restoration application was misplaced hence this duplicate copy of restoration application filed alongwith Listing Application No. 106584 of 2004 was directed to be treated as original restoration application.

3. This restoration application has been filed for recall of my order dated 18. 9. 2004. The operative portion of my judgment dated 18. 9. 2004 is quoted below:

"the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file the order of Collector dated 26. 3. 1999 before the trial court. The trial court shall call for a fresh report from L. R. Inspector on the basis of the order of Collector dated 26. 3. 1999, which is Annexure-14 of the writ petition. Copy of the corrected map is on page 70 of the writ petition. "

4. In fact I did not decide anything finally through my aforesaid judgment. However in my judgment I mentioned that the Collector, Allahabad passed final order on 26. 3. 1999 in proceedings for correction of map under Section 28 of Land Revenue Act.

5. The only argument of learned counsel for applicant in this recall/modification application is that Annexure-14 to the writ petition order dated 26. 3. 1999 has been passed by Chief Revenue Officer, Allahabad and under Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act Chief Revenue Officer has got no power to discharge the functions of Collector. In this regard a letter dated 29. 5. 1986 written by Secretary, Board of Revenue, U. P. , Lucknow to all District Magistrates has been shown. In the said letter it is mentioned that in order to streamline the administration of revenue different posts have been sanctioned including 15 posts in 15 districts of Chief Revenue Officer through Government order dated 12. 2. 1986. Some other posts were also created through the said Government order. In the letter dated 29. 5. 1986 functions of different newly created post holders were enumerated. In respect of functions of Chief Revenue Officer under Clause II it was mentioned that Chief Revenue Officer (C. R. O.) would decide revenue suits and appeals. Thereafter it was mentioned that approval of the Government was being sought for conferring the powers of Additional Collector under Land Revenue Act upon the Chief Revenue Officer. The main argument of learned counsel for applicant is that thereafter the Government never conferred the said power upon C. R. O. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon Section 234 of Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act wherein it has been mentioned that Board may with the previous sanction of the Government make rules.

6. In this regard reference may be made to a Government order dated 7. 3. 1996 No. 1805/ii- (2) 1996 communicated by Kalika Prasad Secretary Government of Uttar Pradesh to different authorities including Commissioners and D. M. The first para of the said Communication/government order translated in English reads as under:

"on the above subject, I have been directed to say that Governor was pleased to grant permission for change of designation of those P. C. S. Officers who were appointed on the post of Chief Revenue Officer in a district to Chief Revenue Officer-Additional District Magistrate (Land Revenue ). "

7. From the above it is quite clear that Chief Revenue Officer have been re-designated as C. R. O.-A. D. M. (Land Revenue ). This clearly amounts to conferring the power upon them to hear the cases under Land Revenue Act. In fact by virtue of the aforesaid G. O. it is evident that the main duty of Chief Revenue Officer is to hear the cases under Land Revenue Act.

8. In a recent Full Bench authority in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40986 of 2001, Brahm Singh v. Board of Revenue and others, decided on 29. 4. 2008 it has been held that all Additional Collectors are entitled to exercise the power of Collector under Section 14a (4) of U. P. Land Revenue Act.

9. Accordingly I do not find any force in the contention of learned counsel for the applicant in recall/modificatio