JUDGMENT R.S. Verma, M(J.) - A proceeding under section 122-B, U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, was started at the report of Ram Lakhan Lal on the ground that plot no. 2881 (area O.46 acre) was recorded as Nazul land and that Dukhi had encroached on a portion of this land. Dukhi filed an objection that the land was not Gaon Sabha property, but was the property of the Zila Parishad and hence the Gaon Sabha was not entitled to initiate any proceedings under section 122-B, U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, against him. The learned trial court found that the disputed plot was not the property of the Gaon Sabha and hence proceedings under section 122-B, U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, were not maintainable. The Gaon Sabha filed a revision against that order in the court of the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division. The revision was heard by Shri R.K. Goel, learned Commissioner. The learned Commissioner was of the opinion that the trial court should have impleaded the Zila Parishad in the case and that because it did not do so, the order passed by it was erroneous and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, he made a recommendation to the Board that the revision petition be allowed, the order of the trial court be set aside and the case be remanded to the trial court for hearing it afresh after impleading the zila parishad. 2. Dukhi, objector, has filed an objection against the recommendation of the learned Commissioner. One of the grounds taken in the objection is that the Gaon Sabha was not competent to initiate any proceedings under section 122-B U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and because of that it was also not competent to file any revision against the order of the trial court has recorded a finding of fact that the learned Commissioner could not go behind that finding of fact. 3. The first point to be considered is whether the disputed plot belonged to the Gaon Sabha or to the zila parishad. A finding of fact has been given by the learned trial court that the land in suit belonged to the zila parishad and not to the Gaon Sabha. That is, as far as this region is concerned, end of the matter regarding that point. The revisional court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. 4. That is, as far as this region is concerned, end of the matter regarding that point. The revisional court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. 4. Now, the question which arised in this context is whether the Gaon Sabha could have initiated any proceedings under section 122-B, U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, in respect of a land, which did not belong to it, section 122-B, U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is clear on the point that if the land, encroached upon, belonged to the Gaon Sabha proceeding under section 122-B, U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, can be initiated by the Gaon Sabha and if the disputed plot belongs to a local authority then the local authority alone will have power to initiate proceedings under this section in respect of that land. Here in this case, the finding of fact is that the land in suit belongs to the zila parishad. The zila parishad has not initiated any proceedings against the objector, Dukhi. The Gaon Sabha has no power to initiate any proceedings against Dukhi in respect of the land in suit because it does not belong to the Gaon Sabha. Hence, the present proceeding under section 122-B U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act, was incompetent and rightly dismissed by the trial court. No illegality or material irregularity was committed by the learned trial court and hence its order cannot be interfered with by a revisional court. 5. Section 122-B (2) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, lays down that if the land Management Committee or the local authority as the case may be, fails to take any action in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, the Collector shall proceed to take action in accordance with sub section (3) to (4-D) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. In this case, the Collector did not take any proceedings against Dukhi under section (3) to (4-D) of section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, the Collector has such a power, but this power must be exercised by him separately according to the provision of law. It could be illegal to continue a proceeding which is void as is the case, here, from the very beginning. It could be illegal to continue a proceeding which is void as is the case, here, from the very beginning. As the present proceedings under section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was incompetent it was bound to be quashed and it could not continue or be revived for the purpose of impleading a person, who did not think it proper to initiate the proceeding itself. The question of impleadment in a proceeding, which is void, does not arise at all. 6. I fail to agree with the opinion of the learned Commissioner that proceeding under section 122-B U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act should be continued and that the zila parishad should be ordered to be impleaded in it. The zila parishad or the Collector may still institute a proceeding under section 122-B U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, against Dukhi but that must be done by instituting a separate case. As far as the present proceedings is concerned, it is void as ab initio and must be thrown out. 7. The law is very clear that a revisional court can interfere with the order of subordinate court only if subordinate court had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it, or it failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it, or had acted illegally or with material regularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. In this case, it cannot be said that the learned trial court committed any act which could come within the mischief of section 115-Code of Civil Procedure, or section 333, U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Not only that, even if it was the demand of justice or property that ejectment proceedings should start against a person, who had encroached upon the land of local authority the proper procedure will of course, be that mentioned in sub-section (1) to (4-D) of section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The revisional court will have no power to interfere with the order of the trial court on such considerations, disregarding the mandatory provisions of law. The order of the learned trial court cannot be assailed even on the grounds of justice or propriety because the local authority or Collector will still have power to initiate proceedings against Dukhi, if they think it fit to do so. 8. So, I do not agree with the recommendation of the learned Commissioner. The order of the learned trial court cannot be assailed even on the grounds of justice or propriety because the local authority or Collector will still have power to initiate proceedings against Dukhi, if they think it fit to do so. 8. So, I do not agree with the recommendation of the learned Commissioner. The revision petition filed by the Gaon Sabha was not maintainable because it had power to file any revision against the older of the trial court. The fact is that the Gaon Sabha had no power to initiate the very proceedings itself. The opinion of the learned Commissioner. Sri R.K. Goel that the Gaon Sabha was an interested party in this case is absolutely incorrect and is against the evidence on the file. 9. The revision petition accordingly dismissed.