IMPORTANT POINT
The Additional Commissioner lacks the statutory authority to review his own orders under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, leading to the annulment of subsequent orders.

JUDGMENT :

(Ajit Kumar, J.) :

Heard Sri Saiful Islam Siddiqui and Ms. Tahira Kazmi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and Sri Shashank Bhartiya, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for the caveator-respondent and Sri Ashok Kumar Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel.

2. Petitioners before this Court are aggrieved against the orders dated 4.1.2011 and 18.4.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Moradabad Division, Moradabad, whereby, in the first instance he reviewed his earlier order dated 13.3.2008 and so consequently restored the revision petition of the petitioners and then dismissing the writ petition on merits upholding the order passed by the Collector dated 28.4.2007.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioners claimed to be the valid lease holders of the land in question by virtue of resolution passed by the Land Management Committee dated 12.4.1997 which stood approved by the Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 13.5.1997.

4. It appears that on the basis of some report submitted by Sub Divisional Officer, Sahabad dated 24.6.2006 a case came to be registered under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Notices were stated to have been issued by the lease holders which was seriously objected to, however, the land was held to be covered by Section 132 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and thus, the order cancelling the lease was passed on 28.4.2007. Against the said order the petitioners preferred revision before the Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad who after perusal of records held that the Collector did not correctly and minutely examined the allotment records as the allotment was made to the petitioners in the category of Bhumidhari with non transferable rights and just because paper No. 57-B got a wrongful transcription of Sirdari rights in respect of lease holders, it would not have affected the rights of the petitioners by way of allotment of bhumidhari rights though non transferable. It was held by the Commissioner that the petitioners/allottees could not be held responsible for such typographical error as there was a resolution for the purposes of bhumidhari lease. The Court held that by efflux of time they have acquired bhumidhari rights also and therefore, at such a belated stage, the lease could not have been cancelled. Thus, the Court sitting in revision allowed the revision application of the petitioner and set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector cancelling the lease.

5. It appears that a review petition came to be filed before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Moradabad upon which he reviewed his earlier order dated 23.5.2007 by order dated 4.1.2011 and restored the revision petition for the purposes of its disposal again on merits vide the same order. It is after reviewing the revision petition, the Court ordered at the same time for summoning of lower Court records but no fresh notices were issued to the present petitioners for final hearing in the matter. The Court then finally heard the matter again and this time vide order dated 18.4.2012 dismissed the revision and confirmed the order passed by the Additional Collector, Rampur dated 28.4.2007.

6. Assailing these two orders dated 4.1.2011 and 18.4.2012, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the first instance the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) had no power of review. He submits that the power of review lies only with the Board of Revenue under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 which had been made applicable vide schedule III of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. He submits that the power of review is a statutory power and unless the statute confers the power upon a particular judicial authority under the Act creating such authority, no Court or Tribunal or the authority exercising quasi judicial power can exercise power of review.

7. Learned counsel for the petition