Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Kumar learned Standing Counsel.

2. Section 201 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 provides for filing of a restoration application, if an ex parte order has been passed against a person arrayed in the proceedings. No appeal or revision will lie against such an order which is alleged to be ex parte and therefore the only remedy is to file a restoration application.

3. In the instant case, the Naib Tehsildar had passed an order whereas the restoration has been allowed by the Tehsildar. It is this part of the procedure which was questioned by the respondent in a revision which has been allowed by the learned Commissioner directing that the restoration shall be decided by the Naib Tehsildar.

4. Section 224 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 is the charging section under which the State Government confers the powers on the Tehsildars and Naib Tehsildars. Section 231 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 provides that the powers of a subordinate authority can be exercised by a superior authority. The Tehsildar is admittedly a superior officer to the Naib Tehsildar.

5. It is also to be noted that the powers that are to be exercised by the Tehsildar can also be exercised by the Naib Tehsildar on account of a conferment by virtue of Section 3 of the U.P. Land Laws Amendment Act No. 10 of 1961. Not only this the said amendment was brought about with retrospective effect and a validating clause was also added in order to ensure that any action taken by the Naib Tehsildar exercising the power of the Tehsildar be saved. It is thus clear that that the powers that are exercisable by the Tehsildar can also be exercised by the Naib Tehsildar and the converse is also true.

6. In the instant case the observation made in the impugned order is that the Board of Revenue has ruled that a restoration application will be entertained by the same Court which had passed the orders and not by any other Court.

7. A perusal of Section 201 would indicate that a rehearing can be conducted on proof of good cause of non-appearance, and the party moving the application satisfies the officer making the order that there has been failure of justice. Such an officer may upon such terms as he thinks fit may revive the case.

8. It is thus clear that the words used by the Legislature in Section 201 are categorical that the restoration application has to be filed before the same presiding officer who had passed the order. The words are not the same Court but the same presiding officer. The presiding officer would naturally mean the persona designata functioning and not the officer by name. This has to be clarified that on account of the fact that the presiding officers of a particular Court keep on changing either due to retirement or otherwise any vacancy arising. Thus the Naib Tehsildar of the Court that passed the orders in the present case will be presumed to be the presiding officer entitled to entertain the restoration application.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said Court was vacant when the restoration application was filed and even when the order came to be passed by the Tehsildar. The submission therefore appears to be that the Tehsildar otherwise had jurisdiction to entertain the restoration application in the absence of the Naib Tehsildar.

10. Section 192 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 confers a power to transfer cases to and from subordinates. There is nothing on record to indicate that the case had been actually transferred by invoking the powers under Section 192 to the Court of the Tehsildar who passed the order. There is nothing on record to indicate in the order of the Tehsildar that these orders were being passed on account of the Court of the Naib Tehsildar being vacant.

11. In such circumstances, the arguments advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as Section 201 is categorical and therefore the conc