JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - Revision No. 289 of 1970-71 has been field by Mohammad Naseem. Revision no. 290 of 1970-71 has been field by Abdul Ruaf. Both these revisions are against the order of Sri S.M. Hasan, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division dated 2-2-1971, dismissing connected appeals no. 828 and 829 of 1970 against the order dated 20-3-1970 passed by the sub-divisional Officer, Bikapur in case nos. 61 and 58 under Section 198 (2), U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. The revision have been heard together at the request of the counsels for both the parties. 3. Bhaggal and others, resident of village Nandruali had given an application to the sub-Divisional Officer that the Gaon Sabha, Mandrauli had granted certain lease in a illegal and irregular manner. After taking suo motu action and conducting an inquiry in the prescribed manner the Sub-Divisional Officer by his order dated 20-3-70 cancelled 16 lease among them being the leases in favour of Mohammad Naseem and Abdul Rauf. Mohammad Naseem and Abdul Rauf went up in appeal before the Additional Commissioner who dismissed their appeals. Now they have come up in revision before this court. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionists has contended that the learned Additional Commissioner has erred in law in dismissing the appeals on the ground that the other of the Sub-Divisional Officer was not appealable. He has refereed to Bihari Lal v. Board of Revenue, U.P. R.D 1974, 124, in which learned Bench of the Allahabad High Court has observed as follows: "It is well settled that the description given to a memorandum of appeal is not final and binging on the court. If a litigant being under an impression that a second appeal lied, files as second appeal, the Court is not bound to treat it is second appeal. If it finds that in law no second appeal lied but in its place a revision, in such circumstances it is in the interest of justice fit and proper to convert the appeals into a revision and to hear and decide it as such. These are merely ministerial matters. In the absence of a statutory prohibition, the authority possession the power of deciding a revision, has, by implication, the power to effect the conversion of memorandum of appeal into a revision, and then to hear and decide it as such. These are merely ministerial matters. In the absence of a statutory prohibition, the authority possession the power of deciding a revision, has, by implication, the power to effect the conversion of memorandum of appeal into a revision, and then to hear and decide it as such. In our opinion, the Deputy Director was in error in holding that he had no jurisdiction to convert the second appeal into a revision. He ought to have permitted it and then to have decided the matter on merits." According to the principle laid down above, the learned Additional Commissioner should have converted the appeals against he order of the Sub-Divisional Office into revisions. Thereafter, instead of dismissing the appeals as not maintainable, he should have heard the revision and submitted his recommendation for orders of the Board. The order of the learned Additional Commissioner dismissing the appeals, therefore, accounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in the court. 5. The result is that I hereby allow the revisionist, set aside the order of the learned Additional Commissioner, and direct that the he shall convert the first appeals into provisions and re-hear them in accordance with law. 6. This order will govern the connected revisions nos. 289 and 290 of 1970/71/Faizabad.