JUDGMENT P. K. Mattoo, I. A. S.—This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 12-12-1975 of the Land Reforms Officer (Assistant Collector IInd Grade) Nahan, whereby the latter has sanctioned a mutation of proprietory rights in favour of the respondents/tenants. 2. I have beard the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. The petitioner has without taking recourse to an appeal as provided for in section 114 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 filed the present petition. Since the petition does not specify the grounds on account of which the unsual step is being taken, the learned counsel for the petitioner was given an opportunity of explaining his case. The only argument pressed before me was that the petitioner had some sort of a fear that justice would not be done to him at the appellate stage. 3. Section 114 of the said Act provides for an appeal from the order of the Land Reforms Officer to the Collector and a second appeal from the order to the Revenue Commissioner. The mere premonition of unfair1 treatment, Dot based on facts cannot be made a ground for the exercise of jurisdiction in revision, in cases where specific remedy in the nature of an appeal is provided for. 4. In view of the above discussion, I find no force in this petition, which is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.