JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri M.M. Haq, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.S. Tiwari, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State respondents and Sri Mohd. Kumail Haider and Iqbal Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5.

2. By means of this petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 29.12.2000 passed by the Additional District Magistrate / Additional District Collector, Balrampur in Case No. 7/11/19/49/31 filed u/s 122C(6) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 thereby in a suit filed by the private opposite party the authority has cancelled the patta being granted in favour of the petitioner u/s 122C. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 23.1.2001 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Administration, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda in a revision whereby the revisional authority has rejected the revision holding that any order being passed u/s 122C(6) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is a final order, therefore, no revision would be maintainable.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that initially one suit u/s 122 C(6) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act bearing Suit No. 195 : State vs. Naim, has been filed before the Chief Revenue Officer, Gonda and Chief Revenue Officer, Gonda vide order dated 5.2.1996 cancelled the lease given to the petitioner for the reason that the lease given to the petitioner on Gata no. 396 is a land recorded in the revenue record as a 'Sadak Khas'. He has further stated in his order that the lease granted by the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned is per se illegal as no lease can be granted on the public utility land and the preferential list has not been prepared.

4. The aforesaid order has been assailed by the petitioner by filing revision before the Commissioner and that revision of the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 13.1.1998 by the Additional Commissioner, Administration, Faizabad Mandal, Faizabad setting aside the order dated 5.2.1996 passed by the Chief Revenue Officer. In the aforesaid order the revisional authority has categorically indicated that any order u/s 122C(6) can be passed by the Collector after following the due procedure of law, therefore, the order passed by the Chief Revenue Officer is without jurisdiction order.

5. Thereafter the private opposite party being aggrieved for the fact that on account of lease given to the petitioner on Gata no. 396 which is a public utility land his right to utilize such land being a tenure holder of the adjacent gata number has filed a case before the Additional District Magistrate / Additional Collector, Balrampur. In the aforesaid case the notices were issued to the petitioner and petitioner participated in the proceedings. The Addl. District Magistrate / Assistant Collector, Balrampur has allowed the case of the private opposite party vide order dated 29.12.2000 cancelling the order dated 8.2.1991 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Uttraula granting lease to the petitioner and directed that the documents be corrected accordingly. The petitioner assailed the aforesaid order dated 29.12.2000 filing the revision before the Additional Commissioner and the said revision was dismissed vide order date 23.1.2001 being not maintainable but the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that when the issue in question has already been adjudicated, the same issue should have not been adjudicated under some provision of law. He has further submitted that when a lease was given to the petitioner by the S.D.O. concerned, the said lease may not be cancelled by the Additional District Magistrate / Assistant Collector invoking powers of section 122C(6) of the U.P.Z.A.& L.A. Act.

6. Therefore, the impugned order dated 29.12.2000 is liable to be set aside and the revisional order is liable to be set aside inasmuch as if any order u/s 122C(6) has been passed without jurisdiction, the same may be decided under the revisional authority.

7. Learned Addl. C.S.C. as well as learned counsel for the private opposite party have opposed the aforesaid submission of l