The central legal point established in the judgment is that orders passed without jurisdiction are nullities and have no legal effect, emphasizing the significance of jurisdictional validity in administrative actions.

JUDGMENT :

Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Sri Ram Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri J.P.N. Raj, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri Rohit Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 6 and 8.

2. The present petition has been filed seeking to raise a challenge to the order dated 27.09.2021 passed by the Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad in Case No. RES/1417/2021 (Bal Chandra vs. Collector/District Magistrate and others), the order dated 01.05.2015 passed by the Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue U.P. at Prayagraj in Revision No. 23 of 2004-05 (Bal Chandra vs. Collector) as well as order dated 12.01.2005 passed by the Collector, Muzaffar Nagar.

3. The undisputed facts of the case as evident from the pleadings in the petition are that an allotment referable to the provisions under Section 195 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, UPZA & LR ACT was made in favour of the petitioners on a proposal dated 09.01.2004 which was approved by the Tehsildar, Kairana vide order dated 25.10.2004. Upon a complaint received with regard to the allotment and taking notice of the fact that as per terms of the amended provisions of the U.P. Act No. 27 of 2004 (w.e.f. 23.08.2004) the power to grant approval stood with the Assistant Collector incharge of the sub-division, the District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar passed an order dated 12.01.2005 wherein it was held that the approval granted by the Tehsildar was contrary to law and accordingly the said approval was cancelled and the land was directed to be vested in the Gaon Sabha.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners and other allottees preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue which was rejected by means of an order dated 01.05.2015 upon taking due notice to the amended provisions of Section 195, in terms of which the Tehsildar was not empowered to grant approval. A time barred restoration application was preferred on 02.08.2021. Apart from the point of delay in filing the restoration application, the grounds taken therein were held to be untenable and the same has been rejected by the Board of Revenue by its order dated 27.09.2021.

5. The aforestated three orders i.e. order dated 12.01.2005 passed by the District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar, the order dated 01.05.2015 passed by the Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue rejecting the revision and the order dated 27.09.2021 in terms of which the restoration application has been turned down, are subject to challenge in the present writ petition.

6. Counsel for the petitioners has sought to assail the orders by submitting that on 09.01.2004 i.e. the date of proposal by the Land Management Committee, the Tahsildar was vested with the jurisdiction to grant approval to the allotment as per the provisions of Section 195, as they stood at the relevant point of time. It is further submitted that in the absence of any proceeding for cancellation of the allotment as per the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 198, having been initiated, the order of cancellation would be unsustainable.

7. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, controverting the aforesaid assertions, has submitted that on the date when the proposal was approved, i.e. 25.10.2004, Section 195 had been amended in terms of the amending Act of 2004, which was effective from 23.08.2004, and the Tehsildar was no longer vested with the powers and jurisdiction to grant approval. The approval order of the Tahsildar being beyond jurisdiction, the same would have no effect; accordingly the District Magistrate upon a complaint having been received rightly cancelled the said order. It is also pointed out that the order of the District Magistrate is an order of cancellation of the approval order and it is not an order of cancellation of allotment and in view thereof the same cannot be assailed on the ground that the procedure under sub-section (