JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - This is a reference dated September 23, 1979 by the learned Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, recommending that the order dated March 28, 1979 by the S.D.O. Bidhuna be set aside and he may be directed to pass order afresh after hearing the parties on the application dated March 26, 1979 of the revisionists. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the record. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that .30 acre of plot number 824 and .30 acre of plot number 825 which were reserved for playground were being considered the allotment to Madhyamik Vidyalaya for construction of a building, the Tahsildar Bidhuna recommended the proposal of the Land Management Committee on February 26, 1979 for approval of the S.D.O. which yes given on March 28, 1979. In the meantime, on March 26, 1979, the revisionists objected to the allotment by an application on the ground of grievance to the community and non-observance of rules. The opposite parties have filed objection to the recommendation dated September 28, 1979, on October 16, 1979, which are mainly that it was not a case under Rule 115-N (now 115-P) of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules, hence no revision is maintainable, amongst others. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that no order was passed on his application dated March 26, 1979 and the proposed allotment was approved, so it was illegality committed in the proceedings. He further argued that the land was meant only for the play-ground and could not be utilised for other purposes. The learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, argued that the grant of approval by the S.D.O. was an administrative order and no revision would lie against such order. He further argued that the allotment of land is neither a suit nor proceeding within the meaning of Section 333-A of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. 5. The learned Additional Commissioner has considered various merits of the case without specifying in what suit or proceeding the impugned order was passed. The Question of considering merits of the case arises only after deciding the maintainability of the revision and that the impugned order was passed in some regular judicial proceedings. Obviously, it was not a suit. 5. The learned Additional Commissioner has considered various merits of the case without specifying in what suit or proceeding the impugned order was passed. The Question of considering merits of the case arises only after deciding the maintainability of the revision and that the impugned order was passed in some regular judicial proceedings. Obviously, it was not a suit. Again, it was nut proceedings under Rule 115-N (now 115-P) of the U.Z. Z.A. and L.R. Rules for cancellation of a lease. The facts which have come to notice show that lie Land Management Committee went tough formalities of considering the allotment of certain land to the school and since it required approval of the S.D.O., papers were submitted to the S.D.O. for approval Mich was accorded on March 28, 1979. There is no mention when the lease was actually granted, if at all. Objection dated March 26, 1979 was allegedly given to the S.D.O. as a miscellaneous application be-cause no proceedings were pending before the S.D.O. at the time. Various functions concerning allotment of land by L.M.C. under the present Rule 115-N do not constitute any judicial proceedings but the proceedings for cancellation of any lease/allotment of land under Rule 115-P are judicial proceedings. No doubt, the objection given to the S.D.O. was in his administrative capacity. The revision is quite premature. The revisionists could move application under Rule 115-P for cancellation of the lease. If there was any error of jurisdiction in those proceedings only then a revision would lie. The remedy in respect of grievance from any administrative action or orders lies only by way of representation to the next higher administrative authority, in such premature matters. Even the learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to show whether the proceedings in which the impugned order was passed were any judicial proceedings and under what section or rule of law. 6. Accordingly, the revision does not lie and has to be dismissed. The reference is, therefore, not, accepted and the revision petition is hereby dismissed as not maintainable against an administrative order.