JUDGMENT S.K. Sahgal, C. - These are three references under Section 218 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, made by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, in a case for recovery of compensation assessed during consolidation operations and recoverable as arrears of land revenue, recommending that the remissions should be allowed. An objection has been filed against the recommendation. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Ram Das son of Darshan, Gur Charan and Sheo Nath applied separately praying that Kripal and Lalji should be directed to pay up the amount of compensation assessed during consolidation operations which have fallen due against them. The S.D.O. Sidhauli submitted his report to the Collector, Sitapur and obtained his order for making recovery of the amount in question as arrears of Land Revenue. Against this order of the Collector, Sitapur, Lalji and Kripal went up in revision to the Commissioner, Lucknow, who has made the present reference. 3. I have heard counsel for both sides and gone through the record of the case. 4. The first question that arises, although not brought to my notice by either of the learned counsel, is as to whether the learned Commissioner at all had jurisdiction to entertain a revision under Section 218 L.R. Act in this case. The proceedings relating to the award of compensation for the electric tube-well admittedly arose out of consolidation operations and there is a certificate under C.H. Form 26 issued by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on record certifying the recover-ability of the amount in question. The learned Commissioner has in his impugned order questioned the validity of the very award of the compensation. The impugned proceedings pending before the Collector against which revision under Section 218 L.R. Act was entertained by the learned Commissioner purported to be under Rule 56-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The learned Commissioner has in his impugned order questioned the validity of the very award of the compensation. The impugned proceedings pending before the Collector against which revision under Section 218 L.R. Act was entertained by the learned Commissioner purported to be under Rule 56-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. This rule reads as under: "56-A. Sections 28, 29 and 29-A - (1) Without prejudice to the right to recover compensation through any other mode of recovery open to the person entitled to receive it the certificate of award of compensation issued under sub-rule (4) of the Rule 55 or sub-rule(5) of the rule 56, as the case may be, along with an application addressed to the Collector, be presented to the Tahsildar having jurisdiction with two years from the date recorded on it for recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue. (2) On the certificate of award being presented before him, the Tahsildar shall made a preliminary enquiry to ascertain if the compensation or any part of it is in balance. He shall then submit the result of his enquiry to the Collector for his orders. (3) When the Collector is satisfied, after making such further enquiry as he considers necessary, that the compensation or any part of it has not been paid in terms of the certificate of award, he shall authorize realization of the balance as arrears of land revenue." It will be noticed that the Tahsildar, before whom the certificate of award is required to be presented, is expected to make a preliminary enquiry only to ascertain if the compensation of any part of is is in balance. It is on this point alone that he is required to submit the result of his enquiry to the Collector for his orders. Sub-rule (3) of rule 56-A makes the function of the Collector in this respect also quite clear. The Collector is required to be satisfied that the compensation or any part of it has not been paid in terms of the certificate of award'. Once the Collector is so satisfied, he shall authorize realization of the balance as arrears of land revenue. It is clear that the only thing the Collector is required to satisfy himself about in this rule is as to whether any part of the compensation awarded is still due. Once the Collector is so satisfied, he shall authorize realization of the balance as arrears of land revenue. It is clear that the only thing the Collector is required to satisfy himself about in this rule is as to whether any part of the compensation awarded is still due. Once he is satisfied on that score he has no option left but to authorize realization of the balance as arrears of land revenue. 5. It has to be remembered that the impugned proceedings before the Collector were initiated under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and the Rules made thereunder. This Act is a self-contained legislation in which there is inter alia provision for appeal, revision and reference under Section 48 of the Act. A careful reading of Section 48 therefore shows that there is no revisional authority conferred on the Commissioner of the Division under that provision. The powers of revision are vested only in the Director of Consolidation, under Section 48. The compensation in the present case has been awarded under Act. An aggrieved person would need to seek relief against the factum of the award under Sections 47 (appeal) and 48 (revision and reference) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, and not under the provision of the L.R. Act or any other legislation. 6. In this case, the learned Commissioner has committed a grave error of judgment in entertaining the revision under Section 218 of the L.R. Act. The revision in fact did not lie before him at all as explained in the proceeding paragraphs. This being so, the reference made by the learned Commissioner is without authority and is, therefore, hereby discharged, and the revision thereunder stands dismissed. 7. This order also governs Reference Nos. 170 and 171 L.R./1974-75/district Sitapur.