JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference by Sri S.M. Hasan, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad recommending that the revision petition filed by Avodh Behari against the order dated January 25, 1971 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Musafirkhana, district Sultanpur in case No. 1 under Pule 115-N, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules may be dismissed on the ground that no revision lies to the Board of Revenue. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The learned Additional Commissioner has relied upon a case reported in 1971 U.P. Revenue Cases at page 337 for holding that a revision does not lie to the Board of Revenue against an order passed under Rule 115-N. This view was taken by Broom, J. in the case Kishan Lal Jat v. State of U.P., 1967 R.D. 134. The learned counsel for the opposite party has also referred to Parmanand v. Prem Chand and Others, 1971 R.D. 267, and Gauri Shankar Lal v. Abdul Hamid, 1971 R.D. 322, in which Sri B.K. Misra, Member, and Sri M. Saminddin, Member respectively have taken the same view. The matter, however, has been reconsidered by great length by a learned Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Srimati Krishna Devi v. Board of Revenue, 1972 R.D. 228 at pp. 230-31. In this case Satish Chandra and J.S. Trivedi, JJ. have observed as follows: "It was urged that proceedings under Rule 115-N are non-judicial. In our opinion, the submission is misconceived. Under Rule 115-N, the Assistant Collector incharge resolves a lis between two parties. In view of sub-section(5), he makes a 'decision' in the case. His decision is final. Under sub-rule (iii) he had to hear the parties. Thereafter, he decides the case by a written order which records the reasons for the conclusions reached by him. Further, he can cancel the allotment only on grounds mentioned in sub-rule (1). These various features leave no room for doubt that the Assistant Collector discharges judicial functions under Rule 115-N. These proceedings cannot possibly be held to be administrative in nature. The proceedings under Rule 115-N being judicial in nature, and the Assistant Collector being a Court subordinate to the Board of Revenue, a revision against his orders is maintainable. It is true that Rule 115-N(3) provides that the decision of the Assistant Collector shall be final. The proceedings under Rule 115-N being judicial in nature, and the Assistant Collector being a Court subordinate to the Board of Revenue, a revision against his orders is maintainable. It is true that Rule 115-N(3) provides that the decision of the Assistant Collector shall be final. It is well settled that such finality does not restrict the revisional jurisdiction conferred upon higher courts. In the case of Shah Chaturbhuj v. Mauji Ram, 1938 AWR 437 a Full Bench of this Court interpreted the phrase 'the decision of revenue court shall be final' occurring in Section 5 of the U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act, 1934, as not depriving the higher courts of revisional powers under Section 115 of the C.P.C. The Full Bench held that the finality mentioned in the provision only meant that there was no right of appeal vesting in the litigants against such an order. In our opinion, this Full Bench decision equally applies to Section 333. The finality mentioned by sub-Rule (3) of Rule 115-N cannot whittle down the amplitude of the revisional power conferred upon the Board of Revenue by Section 333 of the Z.A. And L.R. Act." I would entirely agree with the above view and hold that a revision does lie to the Board of Revenue against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer in proceedings under Rule 115-N, and the learned Additional Commissioner has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him in not considering the revision on merits in accordance with law. 4. The above would itself have been sufficient for the purpose of disposing of this reference but the learned counsel for the opposite party has also taken the plea that no revision lies at all against an order even if it is entirely erroneous in law but if the order is passed by a competent court having jurisdiction. Section 333, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act defining the scope of revision insofar as the Board of Revenue is concerned lays down as follows: "333. Section 333, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act defining the scope of revision insofar as the Board of Revenue is concerned lays down as follows: "333. Power of Board to call for cases - The Board may call for the record of any suit or proceeding decided by any subordinate court in which no appeal lies, or where an appeal lies but has not been preferred, and if such subordinate court appears- (a) To have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or (b) To have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or (c) To have acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity; The Board may pass such order in the case as it think fit." The learned counsel for the revisionist has construed the above section to mean that the Board of Revenue will merely examine whether the subordinate court which passed the impugned order under revision had the jurisdiction to do so. To my mind, this is a misconstruction of the above section. The section is certainly not confined to a routine examination whether or not the Court passing the order under revision possessed the jurisdiction to do so. Had this been the intention of the Legislature, the clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the above section should have merely read as follows: "to have acted without jurisdiction." 5. However, Section 333, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act is not at the moment worded as above. Instead, it specifically lays down three separate categories of cases in which revisional powers can be exercised by the Board: (a) where a subordinate Court exercises a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; (b) where a subordinate Court fails to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, and (c) where a subordinate Court acts in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, where a revision against an order of the Sub-Divisional Officer lies to the Board of Revenue, and the Additional Commissioner refuses to consider the revision under an erroneous view of law that the revision was not maintainable, this would constitute a failure on the part of the Additional Commissioner to exercise his jurisdiction vested in him by law. Further, it is also to be seen in a revision whether a subordinate Court has exercised jurisdiction vested in it with illegality or material irregularity. Further, it is also to be seen in a revision whether a subordinate Court has exercised jurisdiction vested in it with illegality or material irregularity. The learned counsel for the revisionist has in this connection invited my attention to Shaikh Jafar v. Mohammad Pasha, AIR 1975 S.C. 794 -796. In this case, a learned Bench of the Supreme Court has discussed the powers of the High Court in revision under Section 26(c) of Hyderabad Houses (Rent Eviction and Lease) Control Act. Section 26 of this Act reads as follows: "26. Notwithstanding anything contained in this act or any other law for the time being in force, an application for revision shall lie to the High Court from any final order passed on appeal by an appellate authority on the following grounds:- (a) That the original or appellate authority exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) That the original or appellate authority failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) In following the procedure or passing the order, the original or appellate authority acted illegally or with material irregularity." Their Lordships observed as follows: "The High Court under Section 26(c) has to see whether there is any error of jurisdiction committed by the Collector or by the appellate authority in passing the order or whether there is any such manifest error of procedure committed by the courts as may affect the ultimate decision resulting in gross injustice. It is only in that context that under Section 26(c) the words 'acted illegally' or 'with material irregularity' have been used." The provisions of Section 26 of Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act are analogous to the provisions of Section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Hence the observations made by the Supreme Court above would also apply to revisions under Section 333, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. These observations leave no doubt at all that a revision before the Board under Section 333 cannot be confined merely to a routine examination of whether or not the subordinate Court passing the impugned order possessed the jurisdiction to do so. 6. These observations leave no doubt at all that a revision before the Board under Section 333 cannot be confined merely to a routine examination of whether or not the subordinate Court passing the impugned order possessed the jurisdiction to do so. 6. Though the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act does not contain any provision to this effect, Rules 186 of 189 of the Revenue Court Manual provide that a revision against an order of a Court subordinate to the Commissioner shall be presented to the Commissioner who will made such recommendations to the Board as he may consider proper after hearing the parties. Accordingly, if would be proper that in the present revision the parties should be first heard by the learned Additional Commissioner or merits who should thereafter send his recommendations to the Board for final orders. 7. The present reference is accordingly disposed with the observation that the learned Additional Commissioner should hear the parties on merits in accordance with law.