TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 1308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assistant collector, first class, in charge of the sub-division. Accordingly, the appellant submitted an application before the sub-divisional officer (in short 'SDO') for according approval for grant of lease by the gram sabha in respect to the aforesaid plot in its favour. The SDO, instead of granting approval to the proposed lease by the gram sabha, passed an order dated 4.2.1975 directing for mutation of the name of the appellant in the revenue record as lessee. The said order of the SDO. was challenged by means of a revision petition under Section 218 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and the same was referred by the additional commissioner to the board of revenue. The board of revenue, after hearing the parties found that the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave petition. 2. Learned counsel appearing for appellant urged that once the name of the appellant came to be recorded in the consolidation record and further chaks were to be carved out in the consolidation record during the consolidation proceedings, it was not open to the collector to pass an order for expunging the name of the appellant and substituting the name of respondent Nos. 6 to 18 and therefore, the impugned order of the collector was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. We do not find any merit in the argument- It is not disputed that the land is vested in the gram sabha. It is also not disputed that no lease with the approval of the assistant collector has been executed by the gram sabha in favour of the appellant. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Holding Act and is authorised to correct any wrong entry continued in the consolidation record in that capacity in the exercise of power under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Merely because a wrong provision was quoted by the collector for exercising his power while deleting the name of the appellant from the revenue record would not invalidate the order if it is shown that such an order could be passed under other provisions of the Act viz. under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. In that view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the collector. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, we are satisfied that there is no merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
