JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member - This is a revision for admission against order dated 19.7.1982 passed by learned Additional Collector Etah, dismissing revision no. 2 against order dated 31.10.1981 passed by Tahsildar Etah/Assistant Collector 1st Class u/s 122-B of Act I of 1951. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and have perused the papers. 3. It has been argued that the revision application is maintainable in the Board under the provisions of Sections 333 and 333-A of 1951. It was further argued that the proceeding was under Rule 115-C and not u/s 122-B, therefore, the revision application is maintainable in the Board. 4. New Section 122-B incorporated by U.P. Act 20 of 1982 came into effect from 3.6.1981. Its subsection 3 empowers Assistant Collector to order for eviction and to impose damages or compensation and to realise them. Its sub-section (4-A) to (4-D) run as follows :- "Section 122-B (4-A)-Any person aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector under-sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) may, within thirty days from the date of such order prefer a revision before the Collector on the grounds mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 333. (4-B) The procedure to be followed in any action taken under this section shall be such as may be prescribed. (4-C) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 333 or Section 333-A, but subject to the provisions of the section- (i) every order of the Assistant Collector under this section shall, subject to the provisions of subsection (4-A) and (4-D), be final. (ii) every order of the Collector under this section shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (4-D), be final. (4-D) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector or Collector in respect of any property under this section may file a suit in a court of competent jurisdiction to establish the right claimed by him in such property." 5. (4-D) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector or Collector in respect of any property under this section may file a suit in a court of competent jurisdiction to establish the right claimed by him in such property." 5. Sub-section (4-C) of Section 122-B makes the order of the Assistant Collector or the revisional order of Collector including Additional Collector not revisable under Section 333 or Section 333-A of Act I of 1951, therefore, no revision lies to the Board against orders either passed by the Assistant Collector under sub-section 3 or under sub-section 4 of new Section 122-B and the revision lies only to the Collector of the District and no revision lies to the Board against the order passed by the Collector or the Additional Collector of the District against the order of the Assistant Collector under sub-section (4-A). Thus as the order passed by the Assistant Collector was confirmed in revision by the learned Additional Collector under new provision of Section 122-B no revision lies to the Board. 6. The argument that the proceeding was not under Section 122-B of the Act but was under rule 115-C of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, therefore, revision to the Board was maintainable, is fallacious because rule 115-C and onwards lay down the procedure in proceeding u/s 122-B and the proceeding u/r 115-C is the proceeding u/s 122-B of Act I of 1951 and in new proceedings u/s 122-B of Act I of 1951 now no revision lies to the Board in view of the provisions of subsection (4-A) to (4-D) of New Section 122-B of Act I of 1951. Thus this revision being under new provisions of Section 122-B and the order of the learned Additional Collector being final and as revision lies to the Board against it, this revision application is not admitted being not maintainable, is hereby rejected.