Hon’ble Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava on behalf of respondent No. 4, the Land Management Committee and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. The writ petition arises out proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and challenges the order dated 19.3.2001 passed by the respondent No. 3, whereby the allotment of plot Nos. 1455 area 0.304, 686 area 0.283 and 702 area 0.061 in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled and the order dated 19.6.2015 passed by the respondent No. 2, dismissing the consequential revision of the petitioner.

3. The allotment of plot Nos. 1455 area 0.304, 686 area 0.283 and 702 area 0.061 made in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that it was made when that the petitioner was a member of the Land Management Committee without the prior permission of the Collector, as required under Section 28-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

4. The case of the petitioner before the Courts below was that the allotment in his favour was made after obtaining the prior permission of the Sub Divisional Officer on 16.1.1990. This contention has been rejected by the Courts below.

5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Courts below have misconstrued the provisions contained in Section 28-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. Relying upon Section 2 (e) of the Act, he submits that the said provision mentions, Collector District Magistrate and Sub Divisional Magistrate with reference to Gaon Sabha and provides that they mean the Collector or District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate of the District or the Sub Division as the case may be in which the Gaon Sabha is constituted and shall include the Additional Collector, Additional District Magistrate and Additional Sub Divisional Magistrate.

Section 28-C of the Act reads as follows :

“Section 28-C. Members and officers not to acquire interest in contranct, etc. with Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti.—(1) No member or office bearer of [Gram Panchayat] or Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti shall, otherwise than with the permission in writing of the Collector, knowingly acquire or attempt to acquire or stipulate for or agree to receive or continue to have himself or through a partner or otherwise any share or interest in any licence, lease, sale, exchange, contract or employment with, by, or on behalf of the Samiti concerned:

Provided that a person shall not be deemed to acquire or attempt to acquire or continue to have or stipulate for or agree to receive any share or interest in any contract or employment by reason only of his-

(a) having acquired any interest before he became a member or office bearer;

(b) having a share in a joint stock company which makes the contract; and

(c) having a share or interest in the occasional sale through the Samiti concerned of an article in which he regularly trades up to a value not exceeding Rs. 50 in any one year.

(2) No Court or other authority shall enforce at the instance of any person a claim based upon a transaction in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1).”

6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, is that the Collector or District Magistrate or Sub Divisional Magistrate have the same powers under the Act and, therefore, the permission that was granted by the Sub Divisional Officer (Sub Divisional Magistrate) was in accordance with law and in holding, to the contrary, the Courts below have committed manifest illegality.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have supported the impugned order and have contended that in case the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, there would be no difference between the Collector, District Magistrate and Sub Divisional Officer.

8. Section 2 (e) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act relied upon by the petitioner is quoted hereinbelow :

“(e) “Collector” or ‘District Magistrat