JUDGMENT

M.C. Desai, C.J. - The Petitioners claimed to be sirdars of plot No. 132, area 58 acres, on a portion of which there stand houses and a mosque. Proceedings u/s 211 A for their ejectment from this land were started before opposite party No. 4, described (erroneously) as Tahsildar. They appeared before him and objected to their being ejected from the land on several grounds. The opposite party rejected all the grounds and passed an order for their ejectment. It appears that the order of ejectment has not yet been executed. u/s 211 (6) they had a right to institute a suit to establish the right claimed by them but they have not instituted such a suit; instead they filed this petition for the quashing of the order of the opposite party.

2. One ground for the quashing of the order is that the opposite party is a Tahsildar and not Collector within the meaning of Section 211-A and reliance is placed upon a decision of this Court in Paras Nath Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (1) (1960 AWR 327) decided by one of us. What was held in that case is that a Tehsildar does not become an Assistant Collector, First Class, merely because the powers of an Assistant Collector, First Glass,