Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:121539 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 13005 of 1981 Petitioner :- Sajjan Pal Singh Respondent :- B.R. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prakash Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- Krishna Kant Singh,U.B. Garg Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. 1. The short point for consideration before this Court is that whether allotment made in favour of petitioner in the year 1964 can be cancelled on the basis of findings recorded by the Revisional Court i.e. Board of Revenue holding that the allotment was made to the petitioner, who was the teacher at the time of allotment, and did not find place in the list of landless labourers. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allotment in respect of land in question was made in the year 1964. The private respondents had initiated proceedings for cancellation under Section 198(4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter called as "Act of 1950") in the year 1978. The Additional Collector, by his order, had cancelled the lease granted in favour of the petitioner on the ground that it was hit by provisions of Section 28-C of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as "Act of 1947") as well as the land allotted was in excess of land which can be held i.e. 3.125 acres and also the petitioner does not fall within the preferential category of allottees. 3. The said order was challenged by the petitioner as well as the other allottee before the Commissioner, who upheld the order passed by Additional Collector and the matter travelled up to the Board of Revenue. Two revisions were filed by the two allottees one by Sajjan Pal son of Manohar and another by the petitioner. The revision filed by Sajjan Pal son of Manohar was allowed while the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that he was a teacher at the time when the allotment was made in the year 1964 and does not fall within the preferential category and was not a landless labour. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this finding was recorded for the first time by the revisional Court without giving any opportunity and the only limited question before the revisional Court was to the finding which as assailed before it, was to be determined. The Board of Revenue had exceeded its jurisdiction and recorded its own finding which he could not have done and at the most, it could remand the matter back to the Additional Collector. 5. Learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that the order passed by the Board of Revenue needs no interference. 6. I have heard the respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. It is an admitted case that the revisional Court has limited jurisdiction. The Court can only go into the question of legality or illegality which has been committed by the Court below and it cannot add or substitute its own finding. It is not a Court of appeal and if it finds that the Court below has either exceeded in his jurisdiction or has not exercised its jurisdiction, it could decide the matter or remand the same before the Court concerned for deciding the matter afresh after framing the question to be decided. 8. In the instant case, the matter was in regard to allotment of land made in the year 1964 in favour of petitioner and Sajjan Pal son of Manohar. The petitioner before this Court had claimed that he did not have the land in excess of 3.125 acres and also he was not related to the member of Land Management Committee and does not fall within the parameter of Section 28-C of Act of 1947. 9. Once the Board of Revenue had recorded finding that the provision of Section 28-C of Act of 1947 was not attracted and the petitioner did not have the land excess of 3.125 acres, it could not have substituted the finding that the petitioner, being the teacher, was wrongly allotted the land. At the most, it could have remanded the matter to the Court concerned. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the allotment is of the year 1964 and the petitioner is in continuous possession of the land in question, the Board of Revenue has exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting its own finding holding the petitioner to be a teacher to whom the allotment could not have been made. Further, the Board of Revenue has already extended the benefit of the land allotted to the other allottees Sajjan Pal son of Manohar. 11. In view of the said fact, the order dated 24.08.1981 passed by Board of Revenue is hereby set aside to the extent that the petitioner being a teacher is not eligible to hold the land in question. 12. Writ petition stands allowed. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 Kushal Digitally signed by :- KUSHAL AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad