Buddhi Singh Vs. Additional District Magistrate (Administrative), Aligarh and Others

property - maintainability of writ petition - sections 198 (4) and 333 of u. p. zamindari abolition and land reform act, 1950 and article 226 of constitution of india - allotment of land by land management committee to respondent - allotment cancelled - collector refused to exercise jurisdiction on ground that order is cognizable by civil court - writ petition filed - held, writ petition not maintainable as alternate remedy available. - u.p. zamindari abolition & lands reforms act, 1951 [act no. 1/1951]. section 3(4) & u.p. land revenue act, (3 of 1901). sections 14-a (3) & 14; [s.rafat alam, r.k.agarwal & ashok bhushan, jj] expression collector- held, it includes additional collector. powers and functions of collector can be exercised by additional collector under section 198(4) of 1950 act, provided he has been so directed by collector of the district. [1996 aihc 3628 overruled]. - zamindari abolition and land reforms act, 1950. sub-section (8) of section 198 provides that subject to the provision of section 133, every order passed under sub-section (4) of section 198, would be final- section 333 empowers the board to call for the records of any suit or proceeding decided by any subordinate court in which no appeal lies or where an appeal lies but has not been preferred, on the conditions contained in clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereof, namely that it had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it or that it had failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. board of revenue, 1094 alj 902, this court had held that even a settlement of a pond can very well be subject-matter of cancellation under section 198 (4) of the said act. 4. according to the counsel for the petitioner, the collector had failed to exercise his jurisdiction vested in him under section 198 (4). thus such a situation is covered within the ambit of clause (b) of section 333 of the said act.d.k. seth, j.1. the petitioner has challenged an order passed under section 198, sub-section (4) of the u. p. zamindari abolition and land reforms act, 1950. sub-section (8) of section 198 provides that subject to the provision of section 133, every order passed under sub-section (4) of section 198, would be final- section 333 empowers the board to call for the records of any suit or proceeding decided by any subordinate court in which no appeal lies or where an appeal lies but has not been preferred, on the conditions contained in clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereof, namely that it had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it or that it had failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.2. in the present case, counsel for the petitioner contends that the collector had refused to exercise his jurisdiction under section 198 (4) on the ground that this order is cognizable by a civil court and the collector has no, power to decide the same. the objection that was raised is that an allotment of land was made by the land management committee in favour of the respondent no. 3. the petitioner sought for cancellation of the said allotment. section 198 (4) indicates that such cancellation can be made by the collector if it comes to his knowledge even suo motu that the allotment order was wrongly made. in the decision in the case of man singh and others v. board of revenue, 1094 alj 902, this court had held that even a settlement of a pond can very well be subject-matter of cancellation under section 198 (4) of the said act. this judgment was referred to and relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention that the collector has such power.3. thus it appears that the collector had power to cancel the allotment of pond as was sought for by the petitioner.4. according to the counsel for the petitioner, the collector had failed to exercise his jurisdiction vested in.....