JUDGMENT M.H. Beg, J. - This writ petition is directed against an order dated 27-9-1967 passed on a review application said to have been filed by Man Singh and others. A copy of the application itself has been annexed with the petition as Annesure 'C'. It shows that a review application was filed on 26th April, 1967 by Man Singh alone against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in a case between Man Singh and Ved Singh and others. Hence, Man Singh was purporting to assert his own rights. In the review application the ground which has been accepted by the Sub-Divisional Officer Budhana, opposite party No. 1, stated as follows :- "That as the village has not been notified under Section 52 every transfer made without the prior permission of the S.O.C., is illegal as it' contravenes the provisions of Section 5 (c) (ii) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The learned lower court should have taken this provision into consideration and should have set aside the allotment." 2. Allotment proceedings are provided for by Rule 115-N of the Rules under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It provides for allotment of sites situate in the abadi or in the waste land vested in the Gram Sabha. The allotment is for the purpose of construction of buildings to be made in an order of preference given there. The first in this order of preference is a landless agricultural labourer, or a landless servant of the village community, such as a barber, lohar or a sweeper, Next in order of preference is a bhumidhar, sirdar, or an adhiwasi who holds land less than the standard 14 bigahs. Third in the order of preference come others. Allotment is made on the results of public auction held for the purpose. Rule 115-N provides for objections of every kind into the allotment. It is only when all the objections have been considered that the decision of the Assistant Collector incharge of the sub-division is made final under Rule 115-N (S) . There is no provision whatsoever for any review of these decisions taken under Rule 115-N. 3. Rule 115-N provides for objections of every kind into the allotment. It is only when all the objections have been considered that the decision of the Assistant Collector incharge of the sub-division is made final under Rule 115-N (S) . There is no provision whatsoever for any review of these decisions taken under Rule 115-N. 3. In the instant case, the Sub-Divisional Officer Budhana had allowed the review application of Man Singh opposite party No. 2, solely on the ground that the allotment was hit by the provisions of Section 5 (c) (ii) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (herein-after referred to as the Act) which prohibits a 'tenure-holder' from transferring; by way of sale, gift or ex-change in part of his holding under the Consolidation of Holdings Act' except with the previous permission in writing of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. No such permission was obtained in this case. The Sub-Divisional Officer overlooked that no such permission is required where no question of sale, exchange, of gift of land by a tenure-holder arises. 4. Firstly, the abadi and waste land vested in the Gaon Sabha is certainly not land held by any tenure-holder. It has been rightly pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that the definition of the tenure-holder under the Act excludes from its purview the Gram Sabha. Tenure holder is defined in the Act as a Bhumidhar or sirdar or Asami. The Gram Samaj does not come within these categories when it holds some land under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It holds land on behalf of the village and not as one of the bhumidhars, sirdars, or asamis at all. Secondly, it is urged that the allotment proceedings are not transactions covered by Section 5 (c) (ii) of the Act. Thirdly, it is urged that there is no power of review against an order passed under Rule 115-N. There contentions 'must also be upheld. 5. No-one appears on behalf of the Gram Samaj. The learned counsel on behalf of Man Singh, opposite party No. 2, relies on an affidavit which is said to have been sent by post and the admissibility of which is disputed. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that there was no counter-affidavit and relies upon the order passed-on 4-2-1965-showing that a counter-affidavit has been received by post but not properly admitted on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that there was no counter-affidavit and relies upon the order passed-on 4-2-1965-showing that a counter-affidavit has been received by post but not properly admitted on record. It appears that the Joint Registrar had directed it to be placed on record by an order dated 28-11-1967 which merely states that a counter-affidavit has been filed. There is no mention in the order of 28-11-1967 that the counter-affidavit was received by post. The office report of 4-2-1969 that the counter-affidavit appears to have been received by post is, therefore, difficult to understand. Learned counsel for the opposite party states that it was filed along with the Nakalatnama. In these circumstances, the counter-affidavit could be and is admitted on record. There is, however, no need to give time to the petitioner to file a rejoinder affidavit inasmuch as the counter-affidavit is not sufficient to meet the points raised on behalf of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the contesting opposite party, Man Singh, relying upon the above mentioned counter affidavit, has put forward two objections. The first objection is that the provisions of the Act debar the passing of the allotment order, and therefore, the Sub-Divisional Officer could declare his own previous order in valid without specific power of review. I am unable to accept this contention inasmuch as the ground upon which the review was wrongly entertained was based on misapprehension of law. Section 5 (c) (ii) has no application whatsoever to allotment proceedings under the Rule 115 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The allotment order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was not void ab initio. No question of declaring it invalid could arise. Even if the powers of review had existed no valid ground of review has been revealed by the review order. The second objection is that that a review application was also filed by Jit Singh and that the review order was passed on the combined applications of Man Singh and Jit Singh. Jit Singh, however, has not been impleaded. If Jit Singh has any rights under the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer he will no doubt be able to assert those rights in any proceedings which may be taken against him. Jit Singh, however, has not been impleaded. If Jit Singh has any rights under the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer he will no doubt be able to assert those rights in any proceedings which may be taken against him. I am informed that a civil suit is already pending between the parties to determine the validity of the allotment order on grounds other than the violation of Section 5 (c) (ii) which, as I have already indicated, did not take place at all. The rights of the parties on their grounds are, therefore, specifically left open for adjudication in such civil suit as may be pending, or, if there is still time to file it, in any suit which may be filed afterwards. The only question decided here is that the review order itself is invalid and without jurisdiction. I, therefore, quash the order dated 27th September, 1967. 7. This writ petition is allowed. Parties shall bear their own costs.