Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri K.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State respondents, Sri Shailendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 5 to 7 and Sri Vijai Bhan Singh, holding brief of Sri M.N.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha.

2. Through this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.2.20131 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Moradabad Division, Moradabad, respondent No. 2 in Revision No. 05/12-13 (Shishu Pal Singh and others v. Hari Om and others) by which the revision filed by the respondent Nos. 5 to 7 have been allowed and the petitioner’s fishery lease dated 26.9.2012 has been cancelled with the direction to initiate proceedings for grant of fresh lease.

3. Sri K.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order impugned submitted that the order is without jurisdiction as against the order granting the fishery lease or lease a revision would not be maintainable. In his submission as the lease was granted under the provisions of the Government Order dated 17.10.1995 the appropriate remedy for the respondent was to seek its cancellation by way of filing an application before the Collector concerned but instead of doing so he availed the remedy of revision. He has drawn attention of the Court to a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, ILR (All) 2006-0-371, wherein its has been observed that against an order granting lease or lease appropriate remedy is to file an application for cancellation of lease before the Collector.

4. Sri Shailendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 5 to 7 submitted that since initial allotment was bad, therefore the power has been exercised under Section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and no infirmity can be attached with this order.

5. For appreciating the controversy in hand as to whether the revision shall be maintainable against an order granting lease or lease it would convenient to peruse the language used in Section 333 of the U.P. Zaindari Abilition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short the Act), which is reproduced herein below:

“333. Power to call for cases.—(1) The Board or the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner may call for the record of any suit or proceeding [other than proceeding under sub-section (4-A) of Section 198) decided by any Court subordinate to him in which appeal lies or where in appeal lies but has not been preferred, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed in such suit or proceeding and if such subordinate Court appears to have;

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

(b) failed to exercise a 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, 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, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by any other of them.”

6. On the bare reading of Section 333 of the Act it will transpire that the power under this section can be exercised by the Board (Board of Revenue, U.P.) or the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner by calling the record of any suit or proceeding decided by any Court subordinate to him against which no appeal lies or appeal lies but has not been availed with a view to satisfy himself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed in suit or proceeding and if such subordinate Court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested or acted in the exercise of