JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, J.
1. One of the question which has arisen in these writ petitions is as to whether the Additional Collector can exercise powers of Collector under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. In first two writ petitions, i.e., Writ Petition Nos. 40986 of 2001 and 40983 of 2001. It has been contended by counsel for the petitioner that the Additional Collector can exercise the power of Collector under Sub-section (4) of Section 198 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and in fact, he is Collector for the purposes of Section 198 (4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. In other writ petitions, it has been contended by the counsel for the petitioner of all those cases that Additional Collector cannot exercise jurisdiction of Collector under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and orders passed by Additional Collector under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 are without jurisdiction.
2. I have heard Sri R. B. Singhal, counsel for the petitioner appearing in first two writ petitions. Sri M. C. Singh appearing for some of the respondents in first writ petition, Sri Hari Om Khare, Sri M. N. Srivastava, Sri D. K. S. Rathore. Sri J. A. Azami and Sri S. K. Chaturvedi appearing for the petitioners in other writ petitions and Sri L. P. Tiwari learned standing counsel.
3. Sri M. C. Singh counsel for the respondents appearing in first two writ petitions and other counsel for the petitioners appearing in other writ petitions have contended that the matter is covered by Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Shiv Autar v. Nabi and Ors., 1996 RD 190. In the aforesaid case Division Bench of this Court considering the provisions of Section 198 (4) and the definition of the Collector as given in Section 3 (4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act has held that the Additional Collector cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 198 (4) and the orders passed by Additional Collector in the purported exercise of power under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is not legally permissible. It was held in paragraph 11 of the aforesaid judgment :
"11. Nothing has been brought to the notice of the Court which may lead to the conclusion that the Additional Collector, Deoria, the respondent No. 3, had been directed to exercise the power and duty of a Collector under Sub-section (4) of Section 198 of the Act.
Moreover, in the opinion of the Court, the power and duty under Sub-section (4) of Section 198 has been vested in and conferred upon the Collector. Neither can he abdicate nor delegate the same to any other functionary. Although the expression 'Collector' Includes an Assistant Collector of the first class but such Assistant Collector can exercise power and perform duty of a Collector under Section 198 (4) of the Act only when he is empowered to do so by the State Government by a notification in the Gazette in that behalf. Thus, only a Collector, but not an Additional Collector, and an Assistant Collector of the first class specially empowered in that regard can exercise power and perform duty under Sub-section (4) of Section 198 of the Act. In this case, the impugned order has been passed by an Additional Collector in the purported exercise of power and duty under Section 198 (4) of the Act which is legally not permissible."
4. Counsel for the petitioner appearing in first two writ petitions and learned standing counsel has contended that aforesaid Division Bench judgment do not lay down correct law. It has been contended that the Division Bench has not considered the provisions of Section 14A (4) of U.P, Land Revenue Act, 1901 and an earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in Brij Kishore and Anr. v. Atrikta Ziladhikari, Kanpur and Ors., 1986 ALJ 1248, was not brought into the notice of the Division Bench. It has been contended that the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Shiv Avatar's case (supra) needs reconsideration by a larger Bench.
5. I have heard counsel appearing for both the parties and examined the contention raised by both the parties.
6. Section 198 (4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, gives power to the Collector to cancel the allotment and the lease. Section 198 (4) is quoted as below :
"198(4). The Collector may of his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment of land inquire in the manner prescribed into such allotment and if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular, he may cancel the allotment and the lease, if any."
7. The expression "Collector" has been defined in Section 3 (4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, on the following words :
"3 (4). "Collector" means an officer appointed as Collector under the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, and includes an Assistant Collector of the first class empowered by the State Government by a notification in the Gazette to discharge all or any of the functions of a Collector under this Act."
8. The first part of definition of the word "Collector" provides that Collector means an officer appointed as Collector under the provisions of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. The provisions of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, has to be referred for finding out the meaning of Collector. Section 14 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, provides for appointment of the Collector. Section 14 of U.P. Land Revenue Act is quoted as below :
"14. Collector of the district--The State Government shall appoint in each district an officer who shall be the Collector of the district, and who shall throughout his district, exercise all the powers and discharge all the duties conferred and imposed on a Collector by this Act or any other law for the time being in force."
9. Section 14A deals with appointment, powers and duties of Additional Collector. Section 14A is also quoted for ready reference :
"14A. Appointment, powers and duties of Additional Collector.--(1) The State Government may appoint an Additional Collector in a district or in two or more districts combined.
(2) An Additional Collector shall hold his office during the pleasure of the State Government.
(3) An Additional Collector shall exercise such powers and discharge such duties of a Collector in such cases or classes of cases as the Collector concerned may direct.
(4) This Act and every other law for the time being applicable to a Collector shall apply to every Additional Collector, when exercising any powers or discharging any duties under Sub-section (3) as if he were the Collector of the district."
10. Sub-section (3) of Section 14A provides that Additional Collector shall exercise such powers and discharge such duties of a Collector in such cases or classes of cases as the Collector concern may direct. Thus, by virtue of provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 14A, Additional Collector can exercise such powers and discharge such duties of a Collector as the Collector concerned may direct and an authorisation or direction by a Collector to the Additional Collector is sufficient for discharge of any power and duty of Collector by the Additional Collector. The most Important provision for the present purpose in Sub-section (4) of Section 14A. Sub-section (4) of Section 14A provides that U.P. Land Revenue Act and every other law for the time being applicable to a Collector shall apply to every Additional Collector while exercising any power or discharging any duties under Section 3 as if he were the Collector of the district. Sub-section (4) of Section 14A creates a legal fiction to the effect that the Additional Collector while exercising any powers or discharging any duties under Sub-section (3) of Section 14A shall be treated to be as Collector of the district. Section 3 (4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 read with Sections 14 and 14A of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, clearly contemplate that Additional Collector will be treated as Collector for purposes of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act also while exercising the power of Collector. Sub-section (3) of Section 14A does not contemplate any specific mode of delegation by the Collector nor contemplate any authorisation by the State Government of the powers to be exercised by the Additional Collector. Only requirement is a direction by the Collector to an Additional Collector to exercise any power or any duty of a Collector. A direction may be an order in the nature of distribution of work authorised by the Collector.
11. The Division Bench judgment of this Court in Shiv Autar's case (supra) has not considered the provisions of Section 14A (4) which creates a legal fiction that Additional Collector will be treated as Collector for exercise of power of Collector under U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, as well as under any other law for the time being applicable to a Collector. The Division Bench in Shfu Autar's case (supra), in paragraph 11, held that powers under Sub-section (4) of Section 198 of the Act has been vested in and conferred upon the Collector which can neither be abdicated by him nor delegated to some other functionary. Section 14A (3) of U.P. Land Revenue Act clearly contemplates that Collector may direct an Additional Collector to exercise any power or duty of a Collector. Thus, discharge of power of Collector is contemplated by statutory provisions and there is no prohibition of delegation of such powers when the statute clearly contemplates exercise of any power of Collector by an Additional Collector, there is no question of abdication of any power by Collector when he directs that such power be exercised by Additional Collector.
12. Section 14A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. Including Sub-section (4) came for consideration before this Court in a case in Balkunth Narain Major v. Surendra and Ors., 1954 ALJ 602. In the aforesaid case, this Court had occasion to consider the provisions of Section 2 of U.P. Land Utilisation Act, 1948, as to if Collector includes an Additional Collector? in the aforesaid case, it was submitted before the Court that powers of Collector under the U.P. Land Utilisation Act. 1948, can only be exercised by Collector and not by an Additional Collector appointed under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, to exercise the powers of Collector. This Court in the aforesaid Judgment held :
"Sub-section (3) of Section 14A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act empowers the State Government to authorise an Additional Collector to exercise the powers and perform the duties of a Collector in cases not only under the Land Revenue Act but under any other enactment for the time being in force. This is a general provision which governs all the other law for the time being in force in U.P. The U.P. Land Utilization Act (V of 1948) was one of such enactments. It was in force at the time when the notification under Section 14A conferring powers on Sri S. C. Singha was issued. The general notification that he is to exercise the powers and perform the duties of a Collector in all classes of cases, therefore, conferred on him the powers of a Collector under the Land Utilization Act (V of 1948) also. It is true that the Land Utilization Act (V of 1948) did not specifically and separately confer any power on the State Government to authorise an Additional Collector to exercise the powers of a Collector under that Act, but this is immaterial because the State Government had general powers to make such authorisation under Sub-section (3) of Section 14A of the Land Revenue Act (III of 1901). It was further contended by learned counsel that in Section 3 of the Land Utilization Act the authority empowered to pass orders is mentioned as "the Collector" and there can only be one Collector of the district as defined by Clause (9) of Section 4 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, and consequently any notification by the State Government conferring the powers of the Collector on the Additional Collector would be void and beyond the powers of the Land Utilization Act (V of 1948). In support of this proposition learned counsel referred me to a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in "Sri Kedar Nath v. Mool Chand", in that case the question arose whether an Additional District Magistrate invested with all the powers of a District Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure and under any other law for the time being in force by a notification issued under Section 10(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure had the right to exercise the powers of a District Magistrate under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. The view of this Court was that under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, the power had been conferred not on "a" District Magistrate but on "the" District Magistrate, and since there could only be one District Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure in a district, the notification investing the Additional District Magistrate with all the powers of the District Magistrate under the Code and under any other law for the time being in force could not be of any effect, and could not be allowed to override the written text of the law. This argument as well as the attempt to draw an analogy with the provisions of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, completely ignores the fact that, under Section 14A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, there is one additional provision which is numbered as Sub-section (4) and is as follows :
"This Act and every other law for the time being applicable to a Collector shall apply to every Additional Collector, when exercising any powers or discharging any duties under Sub-section (3) as if he were the Collector of the district."
This sub-section has the effect that once an Additional Collector is authorised to exercise powers and perform duties of a Collector in all cases under Sub-section (3) of Section 14A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, he is for purposes of Land Revenue Act as well as for purposes of every other law for the time being applicable to a Collector, to be deemed to be the Collector of the District. Sub-section (4) of Section 14A of U.P. Land Revenue Act does not use the word "deemed" and is to the effect that all laws for the time being applicable to a Collector are to apply to every Additional Collector as if he were the Collector of the district. The use of the words "as if he were the Collector of the district" makes it clear that for purposes of that law the Additional Collector is to be deemed to be the Collector of the district. This is no doubt a fiction of law. But such fiction of law is well recognized. Legislature, when enacting status, often creates such fiction, and the Courts have to give effect to the provision made by the Legislature. Normally of course there can be only one Collector of the district under the U.P. General Clauses Act. But the Legislature chose by enacting Sub-section (4) of Section 14A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act to lay down that under certain circumstances, the law would deem that another person would also be the Collector of the district, so that simultaneously there can be more than one Collector of the district. The effect of the words "as if he were the Collector of the district" clearly is that, according to this provision in the Land Revenue Act, the Additional Collector acquires the status of the Collector of the district, and consequently exercises powers under the Land Revenue Act as well as under all other laws for the time being in force in that status of a Collector."
13. The question as to whether Additional Collector can exercise the power of Collector of cancelling the tease under U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act came for consideration before a Division Bench in Brij Kishore and Anr. v. Atrikta Ziladhikari, Kanpur and Ors., 1986 ALJ 1248.
14. The submission of the counsel for the petitioners as noted above in first two writ petitions is that the Division Bench in Shiv Auatar's case had not taken into consideration this earlier Division Bench judgment which has taken the view that Additional Collector can exercise the power of Collector. In Brij Kishore's case (supra), the Court has examined the provisions of U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act and U.P. Land Revenue Act. The Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Act. 1952. Section 2 (f) provided that words and expression not defined in the Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Act. 1952, shall have the meaning assigned to it under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, in areas where rights of intermediary has vested in the State Government under Section 4 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Sections 2 (c) and 2 (f) of the aforesaid Act are quoted below :
2 (c). "owner" means, as respects any land :
(i) in areas where the rights of intermediaries have vested in the State Government under Section 4 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, its (bhumidhar or Government lessee) as the case may be ;
(ii) in areas where the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, is in force for the time being, its landlord and also includes a rent-free grantee, a grantee at a favourable rate of rent, a grove-holder and a tenant mentioned in clauses (a) to (f) of Section 21 of the said Act ;
(iii) in other areas, its proprietor and also includes a tenant having a heritable and transferable interest in land.
2 (f) Words and expressions not defined in this Act shall have the meaning assigned to them :
(i) in areas referred to in Sub-clause (i) of Clause (c) in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 ;
(ii) in areas referred to in Sub-clause (ii) of the said clause in the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 ;
(iii) in other areas, in the law relating to land tenure applicable to the land.
15. Section 15A of the Bhoodan Yagna Act deals with cancellation of certain grants. Section 15A provided that Collector may on his own motion and shall on the report of the Committee enquire into such grant and may cancel the grant or direct delivery of possession of such land to the Committee. Section 15A is extracted below :
"15A. Cancellation of certain grants.--(1) The Collector may of his own motion and shall on the report of the Committee or on the application of any person aggrieved by the grant of any land made under Section 14, whether before or after the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna (Amendment) Act, 1975, inquire into such grant, and if he is satisfied that the grant was irregular or was obtained by the grantee by misrepresentation or fraud, he may :
(i) cancel the grant, and on such cancellation, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 14 or in any other law for the time being in force, the rights, title and Interest of the grantee or any person claiming through him in such land shall cease, and the land shall revert to the committee ; and
(ii) direct delivery of possession of such land to the Committee after ejectment of every person holding or retaining possession thereof, and may for that purpose use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary."
16. Thus, the word "Collector" as used in Section 15A of the Bhoodan Yagna Act. 1952, had the same meaning as defined in Section 3 (4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. While considering the question as to whether the Additional Collector can exercise power of Collector under Section 15A. It was held by the Division Bench in Brij Kishore's case (supra). In paragraphs 6, 7 and 8, that:
"6. Learned counsel for the petitioners Invited our attention to the provisions contained in Section 15A of the U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act which empowers the Collector to, cancel a grant of any land made under Section 14 of the U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act if he feels satisfied that the grant was irregular or was obtained by the grantee by misrepresentation or fraud. According to the learned counsel the "Collector" who is appointed under Section 14 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, is an authority quite separate and distinct from an Additional Collector appointed under Section 14A of the Act. He contended that under Section 15A of the U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act the power to cancel a grant vests in the 'Collector' and cannot be exercised by an Additional Collector.
7. We find no merit in aforementioned submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Subsection (3) of Section 14A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act empowers an Additional Collector to exercise such powers and discharge such duties of a Collector in such cases or class of cases as the Collector concerned may direct. Sub-section (4) then lays down that the U.P. Land Revenue Act and every other law for the time being applicable to a Collector shall apply to every Additional Collector, when exercising any powers of discharging any duties under Sub-section (3), as if he were the Collector of the district. This provision makes it absolutely clear that in cases, whether they pertain to U.P. Land Revenue Act or to any other law, assigned by the Collector to an Additional Collector, the Additional Collector is fully entitled to perform the functions of the Collector. Accordingly in cases assigned to him by the Collector, the Additional Collector is fully competent to exercise the functions of a Collector under Section 15A of the U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act and it cannot be said that the Additional Collector lacked jurisdiction to pass an order cancelling the grant made in favour of the petitioners on the ground that he was not the Collector of the district.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners then urged that the Additional Collector could have had jurisdiction to act under Section 15A of the U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act only if the Collector had assigned those cases to him. He contended that in the instant case there is absolutely no material on the record to indicate that the Collector had authorised the Additional Collector to deal with the cases of the petitioners. This point has not been specifically raised by the petitioners either in the proceedings in which they were required to show cause why the grants made in their favour be not cancelled nor in the petitions filed before this Court. There is presumption of validity of official acts and in the circumstances no occasion arose for the respondents to place on record the facts showing that the Collector had in fact assigned the cases of the petitioners to the Additional Collector. In the result we are of opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to question the validity of the order dated 1.1.1976, on the ground that it was beyond Additional Collector's jurisdiction.
17. The Division Bench in the aforesaid case has referred to Sub-section (3) of Section 14A, Sub-section (4) of Section 14A of U.P. Land Revenue Act as well as Section 14 of U.P. Land Revenue Act and held that Additional Collector is fully entitled to perform the junction of the Collector.
18. The Division Bench judgment in Brij Kishore's case (supra) clearly considered the issue as to whether Additional Collector can exercise the power of Collector for cancelling a lease. As noted above, U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act provided that words and expressions not defined in U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act shall have the meaning assigned to them under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 1950. The meaning of word Collector in the aforesaid case was to be taken under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act which in turn referred to U.P. Land Revenue Act. Thus, the Division Bench case in Brij Kishore's case (supra) was an authority for proposition that Additional Collector can exercise the powers of Collector as defined in U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Thus, the aforesaid Division Bench judgment had held that the Additional Collector can exercise the powers of Collector. In subsequent Division Bench judgment of Shiv Autar's case (supra), the earlier Division Bench judgment was not brought into the notice of the Bench.
19. In view of the aforesaid, it is necessary that the controversy raised in these cases be resolved by larger Bench. In view of the above, let the papers of this writ petition be laid before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench for consideration of following two questions :
(i) whether under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, the power of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector ;
(U) which of the Division Bench i.e., Shiv Autar v. Nabi and others, 1996 RD 190 ; Brij Kishore and Anr. v. Atrikta Ziladhikari, Kanpur and Ors., 1986 ALJ 1248, laid down the correct law?
20. It is open to the counsel for the parties to request the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench at an early date looking to the nature of controversy which is frequently arising in several cases.
21. Let the papers of these writ petitions be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench.