JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, recommending that the revision filed by Jawahar Lal Tiwari against the order dated October 29, 1972 passed by the Tahsildar Akbarpur, district Kanpur in proceedings under Section 129-B, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act may be dismissed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The Supervisor Kanungo had made a spot enquiry and reported that Saheb Lal had encroached upon a public pathway. Thereafter the learned Tahsildar had passed an order ejecting Saheb Lal from 5 ft. area of the disputed land and also ordered him to pay Rs. 200/- as damages. Saheb Lal applied for review of the above order on the ground that a material legal point had been overlooked. It was brought to the notice of the Tahsildar that an Ordinance had been passed by the U.P. Government in 1971 directing no action to be taken in the cases of encroachment made in the Abadi site before May 24, 1971. The learned Tahsildar reviewed his order and in view of the Ordinance referred to above, set aside his order directing the ejectment of Saheb Lal from the disputed land and dropped the proceedings. Thereupon, Jawahar Lal Tiwari, the original informant has come up in revision. 4. The grounds in the revision are, firstly, that the trial court acted illegally in holding that Saheb Lal occupied the disputed land prior to May 24, 1971 without any evidence on record; secondly, that from the application dated January 7, 1972 it was clear that at that time encroachment was being made and further the constructions were started, and thirdly, that even if the possession was prior to May 1971, the trial court was bound to eject Saheb Lal and levy damage for his illegal occupation. 5. The learned Additional Commissioner has taken the view what Jawahar Lal Tiwari was not a party to the proceedings and had no locus standi to file a revision application, as he was merely an informant. This view of the learned Additional Commissioner is not sound. Section 333 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act reads as follows: "Sec. 333. Power of Board to call for name. This view of the learned Additional Commissioner is not sound. Section 333 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act reads as follows: "Sec. 333. Power of Board to call for name. 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 appears- (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vacated in it by 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." 6. The power of revision is conferred under Section 333. This section does not lay down that a revision shall be filed by a party to the case. In fact it does not state at all that any party shall file a revision. On the other hand, it is the power of the Board of Revenue to call for the record of any suit or proceeding decided by any subordinate court and thereafter to pass a suitable order. Hence, the Board of Revenue cannot refuse to entertain a revision only on a plea that it has been filed by a person who is an informant and not a party to the proceedings. The material points which the Board of Revenue has to consider in revision are, whether a subordinate court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise in jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Now, the present proceedings under Section 122-B were started on the report of the Supervisor Kanungo dated January 20, 1972. The Supervisor Kanungo is a responsible field official of the Revenue Department and his enquiry report cannot be lightly brushed aside. He has clearly stated in his report that Saheb Lal had encroached on the public pathway. There was nothing in his report to suggest that the encroachment had taken place before May 24, 1971. Even in the detailed order dated August 8, 1972 passed by the learned Tahsildar, there is nothing to suggest that the encroachment had taken place prior to this date. There was nothing in his report to suggest that the encroachment had taken place before May 24, 1971. Even in the detailed order dated August 8, 1972 passed by the learned Tahsildar, there is nothing to suggest that the encroachment had taken place prior to this date. Once the learned Tahsildar has passed the final order on August 8, 1972 in proceedings under Section 122-B, the prior remedy open to the aggrieved party (Saheb Lal) was to come in revision before the Board of Revenue. It was a misuse of jurisdiction by the learned Tahsildar to review his own earlier order on October 28, 1972, setting aside he previous order. The power of review can be exercised only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some other sufficient reason. There is no error apparent on the face of the record in the earlier order of the Tahsildar. There is nothing on the record to show that the encroachment took place before May 24, 1971. The impugned order of the learned Tahsildar is thus without jurisdiction and cannot be maintained. 7. Disagreeing with the recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner, I hereby allow the revision, set aside the impugned order of the learned Tahsildar dated October 28, 1972, and restore his previous order dated August 8, 1972.