JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, M. - This is a reference made by Sri S.M. Hasan, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, recommending that the revision petition filed by Sahdeo Against the order dated January 30, 1970 passed by Tahsildar, Commissioner Officer, Tanda District Faizabad in a case under Section 240-G of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act may be dismissed. 2. I have heard the leared counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The learned Additional Commissioner has recommended the dismissal of the revision petition on the ground that revision lies against the order of the Compensation Officer and that the appeal was not maintainable. This question had been argued at length by the learned counsels for both the sides. 4. The facts of the case are that certain plots were recorded the Sirdari of the present revisionist. One Panchoo Shah had filed an objection before the Compensation Officer Tanda claiming that the name of Sahdeo was wrongly recorded and in fact he should be recorded as Sirdar instead. After giving opportunity for producing evidence to both the parties the Tahsildar/Compensation Officer Tanda passed ex-parte order in favour of Panchoo Shah ordering the expunction of the name of Sahdeo. Sahdeo filed a revision before the Commissioner Faizabad Division taking the plea that the present proceedings were barred by time and no proceeding could be taken under Section 240-G of the Z.A. and L.R. Act in 1966, Other pleas taken by him were that the lower court had no jurisdiction to expunge his name from Sirdari Khata in such summary and miscellaneous proceedings, that a perusal of the order of the learned lower court would show that it does not transpire under what provisions of law valuable Sirdari right of the applicants were taken away, that the learned lower court ought not to have proceeded ex parte against the applicant when he had moved an application to the effect that the whole proceedings are based on fraud committed on the court by the O.P. and that if in any view of the matter the appeal lies against an order under revision, the present petition might be treated as an appeal. The learned counsel for the revisionist had referred to Sukhai v. Ehsanullah, 1959 R.D. 132. The learned counsel for the revisionist had referred to Sukhai v. Ehsanullah, 1959 R.D. 132. In this judgment the learned Member Sri S.N. Mitra had held as below :- "When an objection had been filed under Section 240-G the case came within the scope of Section 240-H. If the dispute related to the amount of Compensation, the appeal would lie to the Collector. I, on the other hand the dispute related to a question of title, the appeal would lie to the District Judge. Where the dispute related to the right of Adhivasi, this was not a question of title and hence no appeal lay to the District Judge, Moreover, where the question was decided by Compensation Officer who had also powers of Assistant Collector first class, the procedure applicable to suits under Section 229-B read with Section 234-A should be followed and the appeal therefore, lay to the Additional Commissioner." 5. The learned counsel for the O.P. has, on the other hand, referred to R.D. Ram Harakh Pandey v. Jagannath, etc. In this judgment the learned Member, Sri C.M. Nigam has observed as follows :- "Where S.D.O. was only acting in the capacity of Compensation Officer that no notice was served on the person concerned, hence he could not file any objection and that the trial court accepted the contention of the opposite and set aside the order, the order passed by the Compensation Officer was a proper and competent order. This is purely an administrative matter and therefore, no revision lies either to the Commissioner or to the Board." 6. I have carefully considered the matter. The position is that where a Compensation Officer acts purely in the capacity of Compensation Officer and does not decide any question of title he does not function as a court. Where however he exercises the powers of the Asstt. Collector I Class as in the present case and decides a question of title between two contesting parties, his order is not purely an administrative order, but a judicial order and in such a case an appeal would lie to the Commissioner. It would be against the principles of natural justice to say that in such a case no appeal or revision would lie. I would, therefore, endorse the views of the learned Member Sri S.N. Mitra. It would be against the principles of natural justice to say that in such a case no appeal or revision would lie. I would, therefore, endorse the views of the learned Member Sri S.N. Mitra. The Additional Commissioner in the present case has taken an erroneous view of law in holding that no appeal or revision lies. 7. As to the question whether the learned Additional Commissioner had the power to convert a revision into an appeal it may be noted that the revisionist had already made a prayer that the revision may be treated as an appeal if in any view of the matter it was found that an appeal lay against the order under revision. The learned Additional Commissioner thus failed to exercise his jurisdiction in refusing to accept this plea. 8. The result therefore, is that the learned Additional Commissioner is hereby directed to treat the present revision petition as an appeal and thereafter to decide it on merits. Costs will be borne by the parties.