JUDGMENT G.C. Mathur, J. - This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants. 2. It appears that the Gaon Sabha lied an application under Section 211-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for the eviction of the Appellants from certain plots. The application was allowed by the trial court and the appellants were ordered to be evicted from the plots. Against this order the appellants filed a revision before he Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner referred the revision to the Board of Revenue with the recommendation that it be dismissed. The Board of Revenue, after hearing the parties, rejected the revision. The appellants then filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the orders of the Board of Revenue and the trial court The learned Single Judge held that the judgment of the Board did not suffer from any manifest error of law and that justice had been done between the parties. Against that judgment this appeal has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the application under Section 211-A was not maintainable. This point does not appear to have been raised before the learned single Judge. No ground has been taken in the memorandum of appeal that the point was pressed and not considered by the learned single Judge. He is therefore not entitled to raise the point. Even otherwise, from the orders of the trial court and of the Board of Revenue it appears that the Gaon Sabha was claiming that the land was Banjar and had vested in it and that the appellants had taken possession of it without any right; on these allegations the application was clearly maintainable. 4. Learned counsel also raised the contention that the Board of Revenue had misread the earlier judgment and erred in holding that the land was Banjar. We do not consider it is necessary to go into this question as the proper remedy of the appellants was to file a regular suit, since the Act itself has provided an alternative and efficacious remedy by way of regular suit, we do not think it a fit case for interference.