JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a revision against the judgment and decree passed by Sri B.N. Singh, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad in a proceeding under Section 194, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act reversing the judgment dated July 13, 1971 passed by an Assistant Collector First Class, Sultanpur in Case No. 11 of 1969. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: On September 20, 1969 Gaon Sabha Soraon Parbhanpur through the Pradhan moved an application before the Additional Sub-Divisional Officer Amethi, Dist. Sultanpur to the effect that one Bhagwati Din Singh who was a Sirdar and Bhumidhar of certain land had died heirless, that Gaon Sabha had taken possession of the land after the death of Bhagwati Din Singh, and that the land should be vested in the Gaon Sabha under Section 194, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. A proclamation was thereupon issued. The appellant Shyam Bahadur Singh filed an objection to the effect that Bhagwati Din Singh had not died heirless and that Durga Bux Singh succeeded as the heir of Bhagwati Din Singh being the sister's son of the deceased. He further claimed that after the death of Durga Bux Singh be succeeded to the holding as the son and heir of Durga Bux Singh. The trial court held that after the death of Bhagwati Din Singh, Durga Bux Singh had succeeded him and his name was duly mutated and thereafter upon the death of Durga Bux Singh, Shyam Bahadur Singh being son of Durga Bux Singh succeeded to the holding. On this finding the trial court dismissed the suit of the Gaon Sabha. The lower appellate Court, however, set aside the order of the trial court and ordered that Bhagwati Din Singh having died heirless the land had vested in the Gaon Sabha and that Shyam Bahadur Singh be ejected and the possession delivered to the Gaon Sabha. Shyam Bahadur Singh has now come up in second appeal before this Court. 4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction whatever to entertain and decide the appeal and his order being without jurisdiction was liable to be set aside on this ground alone. Shyam Bahadur Singh has now come up in second appeal before this Court. 4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction whatever to entertain and decide the appeal and his order being without jurisdiction was liable to be set aside on this ground alone. The learned counsel has contended that Schedule I of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act does not provide for an appeal under Section 194, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 5. Section 194 of the Act reads as follows: "Section 194, Land Management Committee to take over land after extinction of interest therein-The land Management Committee shall be entitled to take possession of land comprised in a holding or part thereof: (a) The land was held by a Bhumidhar and the interest of the Bhumidhar in such land is extinguished under clause (a) of Section 189, (b) The land was held by a Sirdar and the interest of the Sirdar in such land is extinguished under clauses (a), (b), (c) or (e) of Section 190, or (c) The land, being land falling in any of the clauses mentioned in Section 132, was held by an Asami and the Asami has been ejected or his interests therein have otherwise extinguished under the provisions of this Act." 6. Schedule I of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act which mentions the court of original jurisdiction, court of first appeal and the court of second appeal in various judicial proceedings under different sections contained in the Act, does not mention Section 194 at all. In other words, no forum for filing a suit or a first appeal has been provided. Section 194 of the act is analogous to Section 195, 196 and 197 of the same Act which provide that the Land Management Committee shall have the right to admit certain persons to land as Sirdar or Asami. It is well recognized that proceedings under Section 195, 196 and 197 are also not judicial proceedings and no suit or appeal under these sections will lie. The forum for judicial proceedings has been provided under Sections 198(2) and 198(4). Under Section 198(2) an application objecting to allotment of land under Sections 195 to 197 can be moved before the Collector and the first appeal with lie to the Commissioner under Section 198(4). The forum for judicial proceedings has been provided under Sections 198(2) and 198(4). Under Section 198(2) an application objecting to allotment of land under Sections 195 to 197 can be moved before the Collector and the first appeal with lie to the Commissioner under Section 198(4). Where, however an allotment of land done by the Land Management Committee under Sections 195 to 197 is cancelled by the Collector, a suit to establish the rights claimed in the land can be filed before the Collector. In such a case the first appeal will lie to the Commissioner and the second appeal to the Board. 7. Thus, a comparison of Section 194 with Section 195 to 197 would clearly establish that Section 194 merely provides for the power of the Land Management Committee to take possession of land after extinction of the rights of a Bhumidhar, Sirdar or Asami under Section 189, 190 or 132 of the Act. It is not envisaged that any suit under section shall be filed or any first appeals under this section shall lie to any Court. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has also assailed the order of the learned Additional Commissioner on various other grounds. It has been argued that the learned Additional Commissioner has failed to construe the evidence on record judicially and that it is fully proved from evidence on record that Durga Bux Singh was sister's son of Bhagwati Ding Singh, deceased and as such was entitled to succeed him. These grounds, however, need not be considered here as the entire proceedings suffer ab initio from a lapse of jurisdiction. 9. It may be argued that if neither the Assistant Collector nor the Additional Commissioner had any jurisdiction, the Board or Revenue may also have no jurisdiction to decide this revision. This argument cannot, however, be upheld. Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act reads as follows: "333. 9. It may be argued that if neither the Assistant Collector nor the Additional Commissioner had any jurisdiction, the Board or Revenue may also have no jurisdiction to decide this revision. This argument cannot, however, be upheld. Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act reads 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 appeals- (a) To have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it in 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 thinks fit." Thus, it a subordinate court in any case exercise a jurisdiction not vested in it in law, the Board has the power to pass suitable orders so as to correct error of jurisdiction committed by the subordinate court. It is for this reason that cases in which powers of Section 333 can be used are not mentioned in the Schedule I of the Act. 10. The result is that I hold that the orders of both the courts below are without jurisdiction. I hereby allow the revision and set aside the orders of the courts below. It will be open for the contesting parties to establish their rights through a proper forum.