JUDGMENT A.K. Sharma, Member. - This reference has been received from the learned Commissioner, Rohilkhand Division, Bareilly, which was arisen out of an order passed by the learned Tahsildar in a case under Section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act in respect of a piece of land situate in village Jamalpur, Tahsil Shahabad, District Rampur. The trial court passed final orders for ejectment of the revisionist and also imposed damages. 2. Learned Commissioner, agreeing with the argument of the revisionist, based his recommendation on the ruling of the High Court, Allahabad, in 1974 A.L.J. 621, and held that the Tahsildar's order was illegal and was liable to be set aside and that the case was to be remanded to the Collector for decision according to law. Naturally, he did not go into the merits of the case. 3. No objection has been filed. 4. The learned District Government Counsel (Revenue) has argued that the ruling has been wrongly accepted by the learned Commissioner, because it was the ruling of a single Judge and could not supersede the ruling of the Division Bench of the same High Court, on the same point reported in 1965 R.D. 379, which had also been referred to in 1975 R.D. 147. 5. I have gone through the relevant papers of the case and the rulings cited and find that the learned Commissioner has erred in relying on the ruling of 1974 A.L.J. 621 (H.C.). The State Government acting under Section 3(4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act empowered the Tahsildars to exercise the powers of Collector for cases falling under Rules 115-C to 115-H of the Rules at first by notification No. 69-R/I-A-165(1)-54 dated May 31, 1956 and later by notification No. 1498-RZ(III)/I-A-3587-59 dated July 25, 1960. 6. It is stated in the ruling of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court, as reported in 1965 R.D. 379, that by the U.P. Land Reforms (Amendments) Act, 1958, (U.P. Act No. XXXVII of 1958), the entry at Serial No. 6 of the Schedule to this amending Act, amends Section 224 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, whereby for words Assistant Collector of the second class the words 'Assistant Collector first or second class' have been substituted. Further it is stated therein that by an amendment by U.P. Act X of 1961, the amendment was deemed to have been into force on the first day of January, 1953. Accordingly, it was laid down in the ruling that 'a Tahsildar would be comprehended in the expression Collector as occurring in Section 3 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and Rule 115-D of the Rules. In the ruling 1975 R.D. 147, the relevant notification dated July 25, 1960 as published in U.P. Gazette Part I-A dated July 30, 1960, is referred to and it is stated that this notification empowered all Tahsildars to exercise powers of Assistant Collector First Class under Rule 115-C to 115-H of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules. 7. It is, therefore, clear that the Tahsildar having the powers of Assistant Collector First Class was competent to exercise the powers of Collector for proceedings under Rules 115-C to 115-H, I, therefore am unable to agree with the recommendation of the learned Commissioner and hold that the order of the learned trial court was a competent order. 8. The revision petition is, therefore, referred back to the learned Commissioner, Rohilkhand Division, for disposal afresh in accordance with the law.