JUDGMENT
D.K. Seth, J.
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 14.2.1984 passed by the Tehslldar, petitioners filed a revision under sub-section (4A) of the Section 122B of U. P. Zamlndarl Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called as the Act) which has been dismissed. These two orders have been challenged in this writ petition.
2. Sub-section (4D) of Section 122B of the Act prescribes the procedure for establishment of title through a suit if any person is aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector or Collector.
3. Mr. M. D. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits by reason of sub-section (4D), after the revision, no suit is maintainable.
4. Sub-section (4E) refers to the order of Assistant Collector only. It has not referred to the order of the Collector. Therefore, If a revision is preferred against an order of the Assistant Collector, then no suit would be maintainable. But sub-section (4D) provides that suit can be filed either against the order of the Assistant Collector or against the order of the Collector. Unless there is a revision, there cannot be an order of the Collector against which the suit can be maintained under sub-section (4D). From the scheme of the Act, it does not appear that a person can skip over sub-section (4) for filing revision under sub-section (4A). In order to obtain an order under sub-section (4A), one has to pass through sub-section (4). Therefore, the order passed by the Collector having not been excluded from sub-section (4F) from the purview of subsection (4D), a suit against an order passed by the Collector in revision under sub-section (4A) of Section 122B of the Act is very much maintainable. Such a’ view has been taken in the case of Kajoda v. Asstt. Collector. Finance and Revenue, Mathura, 1996 (2) AWC 1042 : 1996 ACJ 620 ; Sambhoo Nath v. Chief Revenue Officer/Addl. Collector, Allahabad. 1996 (3) AWC 432 and Baku Lal v. Collector, Jhansi, 1997 ALJ 13.
5. In the present case, since the title is disputed, the competent court is the forum where such dispute can be gone into. In writ jurisdiction, such title cannot be decided.
6. After having heard Mr. M. D. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Shri C. K. Rai, holding brief for Shri Faujdar Rai, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and Shri O. P. Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, this writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to take resort to sub-section (4D) of Section 122B of the Act. It will be open to the petitioner to avail of the benefit of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act so as to exclude the time taken by him in pursuing the present writ petition for the purpose of calculation of limitation in respect of the suit which may be so filed.
7. The writ petition is thus disposed of finally. However, there will be no
order as to cost.