JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - This writ petition is against the judgment of Shri Syed Husain, I.A.S., Member, Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabed, dated 28-8-74, whereby the Petitioner's revision petition has been dismissed. 2. The present writ petition arises out of proceedings under Rule 115-C of the U.P. Z.A. and L. Rule Act. The Lekhpal had made a report that plot No. 92 measuring 0. 12 acre situate in village Mohammadpur Tanda, Tahsil Sambhal District moradabad was the property of Gaon Sabha and 'that the Petitioner uttam singh had made encroachment thereon,hence he was liable to ejectment and to pay damages the Petitioner had contested the report and has asserted that the disputed land was his possession from before the date of vesting and that he was immune from ejectment was not liable to pay any damages the Tahsildar ,sambhal had negatived the claim of the Petitioner and had ordered for payment of & sum of Rs. 60/-as damages (see Anmnexture 2' to the write petition) Aggrieved by the judgment of the tahsildar ,the Petitioner had proffered a revision petition which was recommended to be allowed by revisional court as it evident from Annexture 3' attached to the writ petition the revisional court through its judgment dated 28-8-74 has rejected the recommendation and has confirmed the order passed by trial court Against the judgment of of the revisional court the Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the constitution. 3.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has challenged the judgment of the revisional court only on the ground that the revenue courts have no jurisdiction to order for removal of the constructions over the disputed land hence according to him the impugned judgment should be quashed and the proceedings under Rule 115-C of the U.P. Z. A. and L. Rule Rules should be dropped. In this connection he has placed reliance upon the ruling reported in Ram Avalamb vejata shanker 1968 AWR 731 (F.B)and has contended that the relief of demolition can be granted only by the Civil Court and not by Revenue Court. In this connection he has placed reliance upon the ruling reported in Ram Avalamb vejata shanker 1968 AWR 731 (F.B)and has contended that the relief of demolition can be granted only by the Civil Court and not by Revenue Court. True, ordinarily the civil court alone can grant the relief of mandatory injunction The ruling relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner deals with a different situation and is not based upon the provisions of Rule 115-C of the U P Z A and 1 R Act if a local Act confers power upon a Revenue Court or officer to order removal of encroachment upon land belonging to Gaon Sabha, there is no absolute bar that the officer or the revenue court cannot exercise that power In Kishan Lal Jat v. State of U.P. 1966 AWR 734 a learned Single judge of this Court has observed in paragraph 4 of his judgment as below: ...Even if the allottees have made constructions on the land allotted to them, that circumstance by itself would not validate the-allotments, if they were illegal and would not prevent the land being resumed by the lawful authorities and related in accordance with law. 4. Under Rule 115-c sub Clause (2) the Chairman or any member or Secretary of the Land Management Committee, could report cases of damages to or misappropriation or wrongful occupation of the property belonging to the Gaon Sabha to the Collector praying for recovery of compensation for damage to or misappropriation of the property or possession of the land together with damages for wrongful occupation thereof. The perusal of Rule 115(d), (e) and (f) together with the provisions of Section 122(B) of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act indicates that the Collector or the Tahsildar who are Revenue Courts or officers have amole powers to order for compensation and removal of wrongful occupation of the property belonging to the Gaon Sabha. When the officers have been given powers to order for removal of wrongful occupation of the property belonging to Gaon Sabha, I do not agree with the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the revenue courts or revenue officers had no jurisdiction to remove the wrongful constructions made by the Petitioner and on that ground I am not prepared to quash the impugned judgments. 5. 5. In the result, the contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner fails and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, I dismiss the writ petition and direct the parties to bear their own costs.