JUDGMENT

M.C. Desai J.

1. The Petitioner, who claims to be in possession of certain land, has been ordered by opposite party No. 3 to be ejected from it on the grounds of the land vesting in the Gram Samaj of the village and of his being trespasser upon it. The Petitioner through this petition asks for certiorari to quash the order of the opposite party.

2. The Tehsildar opposite party No. 3 purports to have passed the order of ejectment in exercise of the power conferred by Rule 115F of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules. The gist of Rules 115C, 115-D and 115-F is as follows. It is the duty of the Land Management Committee to manage, maintain, preserve and protect all property vested in the Gaon Samaj. All cases of interference with the property are to be reported to the Collector by the Land Management Committee through its Chairman, Secretary or member with a request to have the encroachments removed, The Collector on being informed of an encroachment is required to call upon the trespasser to remove the encroachment or to show cause against it within a certain time. If the trespasser shows cases the Collector has to determine whether his possession is as a tenure holder or as a trespasser. If his possession is found to be as a trespasser, he must, be informed of the finding and served with an order requiring him to hand over possession to the Gaon Samaj within ten days. If he does not comply with the order, orders for his ejectment are required to be passed by the Collector and a warrant of execution is to be issued to the Tahsildar who has to execute it in accordance with certain rules.

3. These rules make it clear that the final order of ejectment is to be passed under Rule 115 F by the Collector and is to be executed by the Tehsildar. What has happened in the present case is that the final order of ejectment has been passed by a Tehsildar and the Collector has never dealt with the matter at all at any stage. The Tehsildar started the proceedings against the Petitioner on the report of the Lakhpal, who is the Secretary of the Land Management Committee. The Tehsildar had no jurisdiction under Rules 115-C to 115-F to deal with the report of the Lekhpal, to make any inquiry into the objection filed by the Petitioner and to order his ejectment from the land in dispute. His jurisdiction was simply to execute the order of ejectment if passed by the Collector. It is not understood how the Tehsildar usurped the jurisdiction of the Collector and passed the order of ejectment himself.

4. The Tehsildar is a revenue officer appointed under the Land Revenue Act Section 17. Another Officer to be appointed by the State Government under the Land Revenue Act is an Assistant Collector of the 1st class or of the 2nd class. A Tehsildar as such is not an Assistant Collector either of the 1st or of the 2nd class. Section 224 of the Land Revenue Act empowers the State Government to confer upon any Tehsildar all or any of the powers of the Assistant Collector of the 2nd class, so a Tehsildar can be conferred the powers of an Assistant Collector 2nd class but not with those that of an Assistant Collector of 1st class. Still the State Government has issued a notification conferring upon all Tehsildars powers of Assistant Collector 1st class. This is a thing which is not understood; how the State Government in face of the clear language of Section 224 conferred the power of an Assistant Collector 1st class upon the Tehsildar is beyond comprehension and the standing counsel has thrown no light on the matter. The Collector is one mere revenue officer appointed under the Land Revenue Act and u/s 223 the State Government has power to confer upon any Assistant Collector of 1st class all or any of the powers of the Collector and in exercise of this power the State Government conferred the powers of a Collector upon all Assistant Collectors of the 1st class. If by virtue of these conferments of power the Tehsildar claimed the powers of a Collec