JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parities and perused the record.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 initiated the proceedings under Section 122-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms-Act on the basis of the report submitted by Lekhpal/Secretary of the Land Management Committee Tilupur, Tahsil Bah, district Agra that the petitioner has encroached upon a portion of plot No. 141 measuring 30 X 20. He issued notice 49 Ka to the petitioner.
3. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner filed objection denied encroachment over the Goan Sabha land. The case of the petitioner was that the disputed land was allotted to him by the land management Committee on 27.10.1975 along with Nathu Baj and Surajan Baj both sons of Sher Baj, Ram Saram Son of Chotey Lal and Rajdev Son of Brij Lal. Since then he is in possession over the land in dispute. The notice was illegal. Bonafide dispute of title is involved which the respondent No. 2 has no jurisdiction to try. The remedy, if any, for the Goan Sabha was to file a regular suit for ejectment of the petitioner.
4. In support of his case the petitioner the copy of patta-dated 25.10.1975 and examined himself and Sri Khuman Suingh, Pradhan Fathepura. The petitioner is said to be landless person of the village. After obtaining patta from Land Management Committee he constructed is house upon the land in dispute. Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 28.12.1984 passed the order of ejectment of the petitioner and also imposed the damages of Rs. 1800/- on him under Section 122B of the Act.
5. Against the said order the petitioner filed revision but the same was dismissed by the Additional Collector on 2.8.1984 saying that Section 122B(4E) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act provides that:
"any person aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector or Collector in respect of any property under this Section may file a suit in the court of competent jurisdiction to establish the right claimed by him in such property."
6. Section 122-B(4A) provides that:-
"Any person aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector under Sub-Section (3) or Sub-Section (4) may, within thirty days from the date of such order prefer, a revision before the collector on the grounds mentioned in clauses (a) to (c) of Section 333."
7. Revision is no barred under Section 122-B (4-A) and the aggrieved person has a statutory right to challenge order passed by Assistant Collector under Section 122-B of the Act. The remedy if such can be availed by him but after filing revision he cannot file such as proved in Section 122-B (4-E). But on that accord revision will not become maintainable.
8. The writ petition is allowed. The revision will be heard and decided according to law by respondent No. 2.