JUDGMENT J.S. Gupta, M. - This is a revision against the order of the learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, in case under Section 198 of the U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Bhopat moved an application praying that Pattas granted by the Land Management Committee in favour of Chhittar and others be cancelled, as prescribed procedure had not been followed. Chhitar and other opposed the application The trial court rejected the application moved by Bhopat. Bhopat filed a revision before the learned Additional Commissioner, who dismissed the same on the ground that the impugned order passed by the trial court was an administrative order and no revision of appeal lay against that order. Bhopat has now come up in revision before the Board. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the order passed by the trial court in proceedings under Section 198 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act being judicial one, the learned Additional Commissioner acted illegally in taking the view no revision lay. He referred to section 198(5) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, which provides that 'Every order made by the Collector under sub-section (4) shall, subject to the provisions of Section 333, be final and argued that a revision did lie against the order passed by the trial court. According to him the facts of the case reported in 1976 R.D. 389, reliance on which has been placed by the learned Additional Commissioner, relate to proceedings under Rule 115-N of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules and have no application to the facts of the present case. In this connection, he invited court's attention to rule 115-F (5) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules, which lays down that 'The order of the Collector under the Proceedings sub-rule shall be final. He submitted that a Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court held in the case, reported in 1972 R.D. 228, that 'The proceedings under Rule 115-F being judicial in nature and the Assistant Collector being a court subordinate to the Board of Revenue, a revision against his orders is maintainable, He said that the view taken in 1967 R.D. 134 was overruled. He pleaded that in view of the view of the Hon'ble High Court expressed in 1972 R.D. 228, the view of the Board taken in 1976 R.D. 389 would not prevail. He urged that the learned Additional Commissioner may be directed to decide the revision on merits. 4. The learned counsel for the opposite party submitted in reply that the view taken by the Hon'ble High Court will prevail. 5. I have considered arguments of the learned counsels for the parties, and have perused the file. Proceedings under Section 198 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act are judicial in nature. The Collector can cancel the allotment on being satisfied that the allotment is irregular. The satisfaction is to be recorded and reasons have to be mentioned therefor. The learned Additional Commissioner was wrong in holding that the order passed by the trial court was an administrative order. The facts and circumstances of the case reported in 1957 R.D. 389 stand on different footing and have no application to the present case. In my opinion the revision filed by Bhopat before the learned Additional Commissioner was competent and ought to have been disposed of on merits. 6. In the result, I allow the revision, set aside the order or learned Additional Commissioner and remand the case to him for deciding the revision on merits according to law. Costs on parties.