JUDGMENT H.N. Agrawal, Member. - This is a reference made by Sri S.M. Hasan, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, recommending that the revision petition against the order dated July 27, 1971 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bikapur, district Faizabad in case No. 1114 under Section 211-A U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, may be dismissed. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties, and have gone through the record. 3. The revisionist Kalika Prasad has been ordered to be ejected from plots No. 220, 222 and 163 which are found to be Gaon Sabha property by the Sub-Divisional Officer in proceedings under Section 211-A, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The learned counsel for the revisionist has challenged this order on the ground that the trial court has either not considered the material evidence on record or has wrongly interpreted in and also because the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to pass the orders for ejectment. 4. None of the above grounds have any force at all. The evidence on record clearly above that during consolidation proceedings the plots in suit were held to be Gaon Sabha property and the revisionist was found to be an occupant without title. The entire oral and documentary evidence was duly considered by the trial court in recording its findings. 5. As regards the question of jurisdiction, Section 211-A authorises the Collector to proceed under this section. According to Section 3(4) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act a 'Collector' includes an Assistant Collector of Fist Class empowered by the Estate Government to discharge all or come functions of the Collector. The State Government has issued notification No. 1756/1A-1070-53, dated June 11, 1953 published in U.P. Gazette dated June 20, 1953 empowering all the Sub-Divisional Officers in the State of except Almora, Garhwal, Tehri Garhwal and Rampur to discharge all functions of the Collector under this Act. By other notifications the powers of the Collector have been further delegated upon other authorities as well. In the present case, the impugned order has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer who was quite competent to do so. 6. The learned counsel for the revisionist has failed to show any error of jurisdiction, law or fact in the impugned order. I find no force in this revision and hereby dismissed.