Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 31.5.2001 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No. 91 of 1998-99 (Sita Ram v. L.M.C.).

2. I have heard Sri K.A. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri R.G. Prasad, learned counsel for the contesting respondent No. 6.

Facts in short giving rise to the present writ petition are that a lease was granted in favour of the petitioner qua on 30.4.1991. The said lease was approved by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Sirathoo, District Kaushambi. It appears that aggrieved by the aforesaid allotment, the respondent No. 6 has filed an application for cancellation of lease under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. This application was numbered as Case No. 10 of 1996 (Sita Ram v. Munshi and others) The said application was rejected on 27.2.1997 by the District Magistrate, Allahabad holding it is not maintainable as the respondent No. 6 was not aggrieved person.

Not being satisfied, the respondent No. 6 filed a Revision No. 322 of 1997-98 (Sita Ram v. Land Management Committee and others) before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad which was also dismissed by the learned Commissioner on 9.2.1999.

Aggrieved by the order dated 9.2.1999, the respondent No. 6 filed a revision on 24.5.1999 before the Board of Revenue which was numbered as Revision No. 91 of 1998-99. The Board of Revenue after hearing both the parties has held that the respondent No. 6 will fall in the zone of aggrieved person and both the Courts below have erred in rejecting the application of respondent No. 6 holding it is not maintainable, while holding so the learned Member has also set aside the allotment made in favour of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order impugned is faulty for the following reasons :

(i) Because the revision before the Board was not maintainable as it would amount the second revision in view of the U.P. Act No. 20 of 1997.

(ii) The Member, Board of Revenue has erred in cancelling the allotment made in favour of the petitioner as that was not the subject-matter before him and the controversy before him was limited only to the extent as to whether the respondent No. 6 was aggrieved person or not and in case he was of the opinion that the opposite party No. 6 was an aggrieved person then natural corollary was to remit the matter before the Collector for deciding the application field by the respondent No. 6 under Section 198 (4) of the Act.

4. Refuting the submission, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.G. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 has submitted that the allotment was made totally in disregard to the procedure given under the Act and in derogation of the preferential category as given under Section 198 of the Act. He has also submitted that a suit for declaration has already been filed which is pending therefore no infirmity can be attached with the order impugned in the writ petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

After hearing counsel for the parties, I find that in this case two questions need to be considered.

(i) As to whether the revision filed by the respondent No. 6 was a second revision and was not maintainable in view of U.P. Act No. 20 of 1997.

(ii) As to whether the Member, Board of Revenue was competent to cancel the allotment made in favour of the petitioner particularly in the circumstances when limited controversy was pending before him with regard to the maintainability of the application, who according to the Court below was not an aggrieved person.

Point No. 1 : For appreciating this point, the provisions contained under Section 219, which is relevant Section for filing revision under U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 as it stood before or later to the U.P. Act No. 20 of 1997 wou