Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17044 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2862 of 2025 Petitioner :- Dev Raj Sharma And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record. 2. This petition has been filed with the following main relief(s):- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 7.1.2025 passed by the Collector District Sultanpur i.e. opposite party No.2 as contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the opposite party No.2 to mutate the name of the petitioners in place of State pertaining to land Gata No.443/1 to 599 total Khatauni area 7.400 hectare, in accordance with law, within time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court." 3. The operative portion of the order dated 07.01.2025, impugned in the present petition, reads as under. " पततवलल पतप हहनन पर वतदल कक तरफ सन मय फन हररसत छतयतपतत पतररनतपत दनवरतज शमतर तदनतनक 14.11.2023 मय तहसलल ररपहरर, छतयतपतत ममतयय पमतण पत, छतयतपतत खततनल गतम भरपयरत सनन 1399 तत 1404 फ०, पततललतप खततनल सनन 1405 तत 1410 फ गतम भरपयरत खततत सनखयत 82 सन 86 दतलखल तकयत गयत हह। सयनवतई कक तनयत ततलर पर वतदल कन तवदतन अलधवकत एवन तवदतन लजलत शतसककय अलधवकत रतजसव कक बहस सयनल गयल तरत पततवलल कत तवलधवतन पररशललन तकयत गयत। पसतयत आवनदन इस नयतयतलय मम धतरत 193 उ०प० रतजसव सनतहतत मम पसतयत तकयत गयत हह। धतरत 193 उ०प० रतजसव सनतहतत मम इस पकतर वतणरत हह :- " तवकय तदनतनक सन तलस तदवस कन भलतर तकसल भल समय वयततकमल यत नललतम कन तत यत अनय कहई वयतक लजसकत तहत ऐसन तवकय सन पभततवत हह रहत हह, ऐसन तवकय मम तकसल तथयपरक अतनयतमततत यत उसन पकततशत करनन यत सनचतललत करनन मम तकसल तयतर कन आधतर पर उस तवकय कह अपतसत करनन कन ललए "आययक" कह आवनदन कर सकतत हह।" उपरहक सन सपष हह तक धतरत 193 उ०प० रतजसव सनतहतत कन अनतगरत पसतयत इस आवनदन कक सयनवतई कत कनततलधकतर इस नयतयतलय कह न हहकर आययक महहदय कन नयतयतलय कह पतप हह। अतएव पसतयत आवनदन इस नयतयतलय कन कनततलधकतर सन परन हहनन कन कतरण तनरसत तकयत जततत हह। चचनतक उ०प० रतजसव नयतयतलय कमपयचररलकम त पबनधन पणतलल पर यह धतरत इस नयतयतलय कन पहररल पर उपलबध नहह हह अतएव यह तनणरय तबनत बतर कहडनड आडररशलर पर पतररत तकयत जत रहत हह। यतद भतवषय मम उक धतरत पहररल पर उपलबध हहतल हह तह इस आदनश कह पहररल पर अपलहड कर तदयत जतय। बतद आवशयक कतयरवतहल पततवलल सनतचत अतभलनखतगतर हह।" 4. The impugned order dated 07.01.2025 has been passed after taking note of Section 193 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short 'Code 2006'), according to which for cancellation of auction proceeding an application can be preferred before the Commissioner concerned within a period of 30 days. For the purpose of deciding the present petition, this Court finds it appropriate to refer Section 193 of Code 2006 which reads as under. "193. Application to set aside sale for irregularity.-(1) At any time within thirty days from the date of sale, the defaulter or the auction purchaser or any other person whose interests are affected by such sale, may apply to the Commissioner to set aside the sale on the ground of any material irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting it. (2) No sale shall be set aside under sub-section (1), unless the applicant proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that he has sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity or mistake. (3) Subject to revision in the Revenue Board, the order of the Commissioner under this section shall be final." 5. Considered the aforesaid provision as also that earlier the Collector, Sultanpur- opposite party no.2 rejected the application of the petitioners preferred under Section 193 of Code 2006 registered as Case No.72 of 2019 (Devraj Sharma & others Vs. State of U.P. & others) and also the order dated 26.12.2023 passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Mandal passed in Revision instituted by the petitioners under Section 210 of Code 2006 registered as Case No.00391 of 2021; Computerized Case No.C202104000000391 whereby the matter was remanded back to the opposite party no.2 -Collector- Sultanpur. 6. Also considered the settled principle of law on the issue involved in this case. According to which (i) the jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon an authority, which is not otherwise vested and (ii) for the purpose of Court or Tribunal also, it has been repeatedly held that a jurisdiction cannot be conferred even by acquiescence or consent or by any Court. (See: United Commercial Bank Limited versus Their Workmen, AIR 1951 SC 230, Kiran Singh versus Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340, Benarsi Silk Palace Vs. Commr. of Income Tax, [1964] 52 ITR 220 (All), Kali Das Wadhwani & Anr. Vs. Jagjiwan Das and another, 1985 (2) ARC 533; Sardar Hasan Siddique Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1986 All. 132; U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. Vs. Indure Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 1373; S. Sethuraman Vs. R. Venkataraman and Ors. AIR 2007 SC 2499, AIR 2012 SC 1239, Collector, Distt. Gwalior and another Vs. Cine Exhibitors P. Ltd. and another, AIR 2012 SC 1239; Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka v. Jasjit Singh and others reported in (1993) 2 SCC 507; A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988) 2 SCC 602 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 372, Bahadur Singh v. Muni Subrat Dass (1969) 2 SCR 432, Kaushalya Devi (Smt) v. K.L. Bansal (1969) 1 SCC 59 : AIR 1970 SC 838, Ferozi Lal Jain v. Man Mal [(1970) 3 SCC 181 : AIR 1970 SC 794; Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra (dead) through his Lrs. (1990) 1 SCC 193 : JT 1989 (Suppl) SC 329; Union of India v. Ajit Mehta and Associates, Pune, AIR 1990 Bom 45 : (1989) 3 Bom CR 535, Marihar Misra Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria and others, 2005 (2) A.W.C. 1111. 7. Upon due consideration of aforesaid, this Court finds no force in the present petition which is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, open for the petitioners to avail the remedy as per law. Order Date :- 25.3.2025 Anand/- Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench