Hon’ble Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.—Heard Shri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The instant writ petition arises out of a suit under Section 167 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and is directed against the order dated 5.11.2008 passed by the Collector and the order dated 8.9.2014 whereby the Board of Revenue has dismissed the revision of the petitioner and affirmed the order passed by the Collector. By these orders, the land in question, namely half portion of land 114 area 0.0057 hectares had been ordered to vest in the State.

3. The land in question was recorded in the name of one Chokat, who belonged to the scheduled caste. The said Chokat applied for permission to sell half portion of plot No. 114. The Additional Commissioner (Finance and Revenue by his order dated 23.9.2003, granted the permission subject to the condition that the vendor would purchase land equivalent to or more than that sold by him, failing which the permission would stand automatically rescinded.

4. In pursuance of the aforesaid permission Chokat executed a sale-deed in favour of the petitioners on 29.9.2003.

5. The suit was instituted by the District Government Counsel under Section 167 of the Act and was registered as No. 13 of 2007. After hearing the parties, the Collector by his order dated 5.11.2008, directed the land in question to vest in the State as the conditions specified in the permission of the ADM (Finance and Revenue) had not been complied with.

6. The consequential revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Board of Revenue. Hence this writ petition.

7. Shri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that proceedings had been initiated at the instance of the Government Advocate. No authority letter, authorizing him to initiate the proceedings as required under Rule 114 (4) was filed alongwith the application and, therefore, the proceedings were not maintainable and were wholly unauthorized.

8. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the condition imposed while granting permission was a condition imposed upon the petitioners’ vendor and was, therefore, not binding upon the petitioners and no order, adverse to the petitioners could be passed on its basis. The petitioners are bona fide purchasers who had purchased the land after examining the permission granted in favour of the vendor. Merely because some subsequent action was required to be taken by their vendor which even if not taken, would not render the sale in favour of the petitioners’ void or illegal and, therefore the impugned orders deserve to be set aside.

9. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the record.

10. In support of the first submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Rule 114 (4) of the Rules framed under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. In the context of the submission made, it would be relevant to refer to the Rule 114 and its sub-Rules which are, therefore, extracted below:

“114 (1). For the conduct of suits, applications and other proceedings, including objections, appeals, revisions, writs and special appeals, by or against the Gaon Sabhas, the following shall be appointed in the manner provided in the sub-rule (2) as panel lawyers for the Court specified against each:

(a) ......................

(c) ......................

(d) ......................

(e) ......................

(f) ......................

(g) ......................

(h) ......................

(2) Manner of appointment—(a) The Tahsil Panel Lawyers shall be appointed by the Collector of the district.

(b) Unless otherwise directed by the Government in any particular case or cases, a Government Counsel appointed by the Government to conduct suits for or against the Government in the revenue Courts at district headquarters shall be deemed to