JUDGMENT B.R. Vohra, M. - This is a revision under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act against the order of Sri R.K. Goel, Commissioner, Gorakhpur dated October 26, 1974. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that certain Government dues were outstanding against Raja Onkar Singh. The house belonging to Raja Onkar Singh was auctioned under the order of Collector, Basti and S.D.O., Basti was appointed as Sale Officer who conduct the sale of the house on June 7, 1973. The bid of Radha Raman Gupta and others being the highest was accepted. On July 7, 1973 Raja Onkar Singh moved an objection before the Sale Officer praying that that the attachment and sale proceedings be set aside because a number of irregularities had been committed in the proceedings. On Lachhmi Narain also filed an application saying that due to certain irregularities in sal proceedings he was prevented from participating in the sale and he was prepared to offer a higher price for the property. He therefore, requested for the setting aside of the sale proceedings. After considering the evidence of the parties the S.D.O. came to the conclusion that the service of sale proclamation was defective and set aside his ale order vide his order dated August 13, 1973. Against this order of the S.D.O. Radha Raman Gupta and others went in appeal before the Commissioner, Gorakhpur, who allowed the appeal holding that no such objection could lie before the S.D.O. or to the sale. Collector under Section 172 of the U.P Land Revenue Act. Raja Onkar Singh has now come in revision before the Board under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act against the order of the Commissioner, Gorakhpur dated October 26, 1974. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist challenges the order of Commissioner, Gorakhpur passed in appeal on the grounds that the Commissioner was not competent to entertain 1st appeal against the order of the S.D.O. dated August 13, 1973. In this connection he has invited my attention to Section 210 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. An order passed by an Assistant Collector in terms of section 210(1) of the U.P. Land Revenue Act urges is appealable to the Collector. In this connection he has invited my attention to Section 210 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. An order passed by an Assistant Collector in terms of section 210(1) of the U.P. Land Revenue Act urges is appealable to the Collector. The order of the Commissioner is, therefore, without jurisdiction and deserves to be set aside. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party challenges the contention put forward by the other side. His contention is that order dated August 13, 1973 of the Sale Officer must be deemed to be the order of the Collector as he acquired his powers to conduct the sale through order of the Collector dated April 29, 1973. In fact, in the sale proceedings the Assistant Collector was not functioning as an Assistant Collector but only assisting the Collector. Sale Officer's order dated August 13, 1973 could have been challenged only under section 172 or 173 of the Land Revenue Act. Under Section 172 an order could be challenged before the Collector on the grounds that he has deposited the various dues mentioned therein, viz. 5 per cent. of the sale of the bid together with the arrears of land revenue and the cost of sale. The application moved by the revisionist before the S.D.O. purports to be an application under section 172 although full compliance with the provisions of this section had not been made inasmuch as no money had been deposited. The Sale Officer in exercise of powers that he had derived from the Collector set aside the earlier sale by his order dated August 13, 1973 and an appeal was made against this order. This order having been passed by the Collector, an appeal could only have been filed before the Commissioner under Section 210 of the Land Revenue Act. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite party further contends that the law quoted by the other side is obsolete and that terms of Section 210(b) as amended, appeal shall lie under the Land Revenue Act to the Commissioner from the order passed by a Collector or an Assistant Collector 1st class or Assistant Collector, in-charge of a sub-division. Therefore, even if the order of the Sale Officer is considered to be an order passed by an Assistant Collector, 1st Class, appeal will still lei before the Commissioner. 7. I have considered the arguments put forward by the learned counsel. Therefore, even if the order of the Sale Officer is considered to be an order passed by an Assistant Collector, 1st Class, appeal will still lei before the Commissioner. 7. I have considered the arguments put forward by the learned counsel. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist before me is the same as raised by him before the learned Commissioner. The latter has dealt with this point at length and dismissed the argument. I agree with the learned Commissioner. In any case, in Section 210, L.R. Act as amended an appeal even from the order passed by an Assistant Collector now lies before the Commissioner and his impugned order is, therefore, within jurisdiction. 8. The learned counsel for the revisionist then urged that the sale proceedings stand vitiated because the proclamation issued was defective. I cannot accept this argument at this stage. The proper remedy was for the revisionist to agitate against the alleged irregularities under section 173 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act before the Commissioner. This remedy available to the revisionist under law was not availed of by him. Instead, he chose to file his objections against the Sales Officers order before that Officer himself who was not competent to deal with the same. 9. The revision application has no force and is dismissed with costs.