JUDGMENT
Janardan Sahai, J.
1. The present writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 15A of the U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act. The respondents No. 3 to 8 filed an application before the Collector, Sonbhadra for cancellation of the patta if any granted by the Bhoodan, Yagna Committee in favour of the petitioners in respect of the land in dispute. The case of the respondents was that the land in dispute belonged to their ancestors and that it never vested in the Bhoodan Yagna Committee nor was the land ever donated by the respondents’ ancestors to the Bhoodan Yagna Committee and that the names of the respondents were entered in the revenue records and there was no order for expunging the entry. The application was contested by the petitioners. Their case was that the land in dispute belonged to one Raja Anand Brahm Shah, who donated the said land to the Bhoodan Yagna Committee which in turn allotted the land to the petitioners. In support of their case the respondents relied upon an extract of the register of Bhoodan Yagna Committee in which the date of donation of the land by Raja Anand Brahm Shah is shown as 30.6.52. It appears that another application for cancellation of certain pattas said to have been given by the Gaon Sabha in favour of other persons was also filed by one Shiv Charan. The case set up by Shiv Charan was that the land never vested in the Gaon Sabha and consequently the Gaon Sabha could not allot the land. Both the cases were decided by a common order. The finding arrived at by the Addl. Collector was that the land in dispute never vested in the Gaon Sabha/Bhoodan Yagna Committee and the pattas were void. There is a recital in the order of the Addl. Collector, Sonbhadra, dated 22.9.92 that in the Khatauni of 1365F the land in dispute is entered in the name of the complainant. According to the counsel for the petitioners this recital refers to the complainant Shiv Charan and not to the contesting respondents. Sri S.C. Verma counsel for the respondents however submits that the said observation pertains to the complainant of the present case, namely the ancestors of the contesting respondents. The order of the Addl. Collector was challenged by the petitioners in revision, which was dismissed by the Board of Revenue by its order dated 25.4.95 on the ground that the order passed under Section 15A of the Bhoodan Yagna Act was final and no revision against that order is maintainable. Aggrieved the petitioners have filed the present petition.
2. I have heard Sri C.K. Rai counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.C. Verma counsel for the respondents.
3. It was submitted by counsel for the petitioners that in proceedings under Section 15A of the Act the title of the Bhoodan Yagna Committee or that of the Gaon Sabha could not be questioned and that such an enquiry was limited to the consideration of the validity of the allotment made by the Bhoodan Yagna. The finding Committee recorded by the Addl. Collector is that the Gaon Sabha/Bhoodan Yagna Committee did not have any title over the land and consequently the allotment was void. No categorical finding has been recorded by the Addl. Collector as to whether there was or was not any allotment in favour of the petitioners and the basis of his entire order is that the land never vested in the Gaon Sabha/Bhoodan Yagna Committee. In the context of the findings and the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, it is necessary to examine the provisions of the Bhoodan Yagna Act. A donation to the Bhoodan Yagna is made under Section 8 of the Act by means of a declaration in writing made by the donor of the land. A person whose interest is affected by the declaration may file objections before the Tehsildar under Section 11(1) of the Act. His objections are to be investigated under Sub-section (3) of Section 11 and after the investigation the Tehsildar shall (a) either confirm the declaration or (b) supersede the same. Sub-section (4) of Section 11 provides that if the Tehsildar confirms the Bhoodan declaration the rights, title and interest of the owner in such land shall stand transferred and vested in the Bhoodan Yagna Committee. The Bhoodan Yagna Committee shall then make the allotment under Section 14 of the Act to landless agricultural labourers. Section 15A of the Act gives a right to a person aggrieved by the grant of any land under Section 14 to file a complaint and the Collector is required make an enquiry into such grant and if he is satisfied that the grant was irregular or was obtained by misrepresentation or fraud, he may cancel the grant and the land shall then revert to the Bhoodan Yagna Committee. The scheme of the Act therefore indicates that objections can be filed at two stages- one at the stage when the declaration is made, namely under Section 11 and the second at the stage when the allotment has been made under Section 15A. The scope of enquiry under Section 11 is different from the scope of enquiry under Section 15A. The scope of enquiry under Section 11 is whether there has been a valid donation in favour of the Bhoodan Yagna Committee. On the other hand an enquiry under Section 15A relates to the validity of the grant made by the Bhoodan Yagna Committee in favour of its allottee. The consequence of a grant being cancelled which is provided under Section 15A itself is that the land shall revert to the Bhoodan Yagna Committee. It is implicit in Section 15A therefore that the land had vested in the Bhoodan Yagna Committee and only the grant made under Section 14 is invalid for the reason that it was irregular or obtained by misrepresentation or fraud. The validity of the transfer made in favour of the Bhoodan Yagna Committee is not within the scope of enquiry under Section 15A. Another point of distinction between the two enquiries is with regard to the forum. Under Section 11 the objections are filed before the Tehsildar with a right of appeal to the Collector while an application under Section 15A lies to the Collector. In this case however the Addl. Collector has in the enquiry under Section 15A held that the land never vested in the Gaon Sabhja/Bhoodan Yagna Committee. The Collector therefore acted beyond jurisdiction.
4. According to the petitioners the donation was made on 30.6.52, that is, before the commencement of the Bhoodan Yagna Act. The donations which are made before the commencement of the Bhoodan Yagna Act are covered under Section 13 of the Act and the Collector is required to publish a list of such lands. Counsel for the respondents Sri S.C.Verma submitted that there was no pleading in the writ petition that the donation was made before the commencement of the Act and rather the pleadings in para 3 of the writ petition and those of para 3 of the rejoinder affidavit indicate that the donation was made after the Act. What has been stated in para 3 of the writ petition is that the donation has been made in accordance to the provisions of the Act. Sri Verma submits that this pleading is indicative of the fact that the donation was made after the commencement of the Act. I am not inclined to accept this submission because a donation made before the commencement of the Act would also be a donation in accordance with the Act in view of Section 13. Moreover the petitioners have relied upon the extract of the register of the Bhoodan Yagna Committee, Annexure 4 of the petition, in which the date of donation is mentioned as 30.6.52. The pleadings read with the document indicates that the petitioners’ case is that the donation was made before the commencement of the Act which is also what was submitted by the petitioners’ counsel. Sri S.C. Verma also referred to this paper Annexure 4 of the writ petition and pointed out that the year of Vesting shown in the said paper is 1954. It was also submitted by Sri S.C.Verma that the petitioners have not filed any papers in proof of the allotment and the Khatauni entry in their favourt is without any basis and that the Khatunis relied upon by the petitioners are forged as the petitioners are shown as Sankraminiya Bhumidhar a tenure which was not in existence then. As regards this contention it would suffice to observe that there is no finding in the impugned order that there was no allotment in favour of the petitioners. Rather what has been held by the Addl. Collector is that the allotment was void. The question as to whether or not there was any allotment is one of fact and a finding one way or the other ought to have been given by the Addl. Collector. If the respondents had accepted that the land in dispute did vest in the Bhoodan Yagna Committee and had merely confined their challenge to the title of the petitioners on the ground that there was no grant in their favour, the matter could have been sent back to the Collector. However as the objections of the respondents and the finding given by the Addl. Collector as well as the submission made by the respondents’ counsel is also that the land in dispute never vested in the Bhoodan Yagna Committee the matter cannot be sent back to the Collector in view of the fact that this petition arises out of an enquiry under Section 15A which I have already held is confined to the consideration of the validity of the grant made by the Bhoodan Yagna Committee and not in respect of the title of the Bhoodan Yagna Committee/Gaon Sabha itself. As the donation is said to have been made before the commencement of the Bhoodan Yagna Act, no enquiry under Section 11 is contemplated. Moreover Rule 10 of the U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Rules describes an enquiry into the validity of the donations under Section 11 as a summary enquiry. The Tehsildar has to ascertain whether the donor has prima facie title or interest in the land specified in the declaration; the donor is legally competent to make the donation and that the land is vacant. Section 9 of the Act also provides that the Tehsildar shall make summary enquiry as to the right, title or interest of the donor of the land. In this case the question of title of the respondents viz-a-viz that of the donor, namely, Raja Anand Brahm Shah and that of the Bhoodan Yagna Committee is also involved. Provisions of Section 9 of the Act, read with Rule 10 of the aforesaid Rules indicates that only a summary enquiry is contemplated and the Tehsildar has only to consider whether the donor has prima facie a right or title or interest. As regards the donations made before the commencement of the Act, there is no provision in the Bhoodan Yagna Act for any enquiry at all. As already found the scheme of the Act indicates that it is only a summary enquiry which has to be held and the matter has to be decided on the basis of prima facie title. Moreover before confiraving the declaration the Tehsildar is required to see whether the land is vacant or not. In other words even if the donar has title over the land which he has donated but if that land is not vacant, the Tehsildar may not confirm the declaration. These provisions indicate that the jurisdiction of the revenue court in proceedings for declaration or of the consolidation court, as the case may be, is not ousted.
5. The question which is involved in this case is about the title of the donor and that of the Bhudan Yagna Committee and as to whether there was at all a grant in favour of the petitioners. These questions can be examined by a revenue court or by consolidation court. Invalidity of the allotment on any other ground such as fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining the allotment under Section 14 has not been alleged which are questions which fall within the scope of an enquiry under Section 15A of the Act. The matter cannot be therefore sent back to the Collector for enquiry under Section 15A. The issue whether there is or is not any allotment in favour of the petitioners and whether the donor had any title over the land and whether the land vested in the Bhoodan Yagna Committee can be adjudicated by the revenue or consolidation courts. As the counsel for the parties are on common ground that notification under Section 4, Sub-section (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has been issued, a suit for declaration will not be maintainable in the revenue court. The remedy of the parties is to file objections under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in case a notification under Section 4(2) has been issued..
6. In the result the writ petition is allowed. The order of the Addl Collector., Sonbhadra dated 22.9.92 is set aside.