JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, M. - This revision petition has been filed by Sheo Prasad against the judgment and order dated January 31, 1978 by the learned Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, dismissing the revision petition and confirming the order of the learned trial court dated June 23, 1977 by which restoration application was rejected. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and have also perused the record. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that Sheo Prasad was found in unauthorised occupation of the Gaon Sabha land since 1371F and was proceeded against under rule 115-C of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, and after enquiry order of ejectment and imposition of damages was passed on June 12, 1970. The restoration application of September 1, 1976 was rejected on June 23, 1977 since the notice in form 49-A had been served on the revisionist. The learned Additional Commissioner rejected the revision petition finding no illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned trial court. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the revisionist was minor on June 12, 1970 and could not be proceeded against or ejected or ordered to pay damages also in view of the G.O. of September 10, 1976 discussed and accepted in the ruling reported in 1982 A.W.C. (Rev.) 87. In this ruling, reliance has been placed on an earlier ruling reported in 1980 A.W.C. (Rev.) 39. The learned D.G.C. (R.) argued that there is no proof at all that Sheo Prasad was minor on June 12, 1970, the Khatauni extract 1376F-78F, shows Sheo Prasad not recorded as minor. He also argued that the G.O. in question did not have the authority of law and once the damages had been imposed, the order could not be set aside on the basis of a subsequent G.O. 5. I find much force in the arguments by the learned D.G.C. (R.). The G.O. is of 1975 and damages imposed in 1970 cannot be subsequently waived by any G.O. which is not made retrospectively effective by any provision of law. Apart from this, only the G.O. issued by the Government regarding directions to L.M.C. under the authority of Section 126 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act can have the force of law. Apart from this, only the G.O. issued by the Government regarding directions to L.M.C. under the authority of Section 126 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act can have the force of law. Other G.O. in general do not have the force of law as held by the Board in a Full Bench ruling reported in 1980 R.D. 1. In this ruling (reference) the Board discussed the history leading to G.Os./B.Os. regarding making Qabiz entries in Khasra and held that all the order issued by the Government in this regard are legally incompetent orders because the relevant paras of the Land Records Manual have not been amended, following the procedure laid under Section 234(2) of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. This ruling fully applies to the present case as here also the G.O. No. 8639/75-sa-12-2884/75 dated September 10, 1975 and the related G.O. have not been shown to have been issued under any statutory authority and after following prescribed procedure. The G.O. contains only administrative instructions which could be followed by the Tehsildar/S.D.O. before the proceedings under Section 132-B of the Act were started, but once the proceedings have been started the law must prevail over the administrative instructions. The G.O. quated in 1932 A.W.C. (Rev.) 87 or in 1980 A.W.C. (Rev.) 39, not being supported by authority of law and this aspect having been left out of consideration, by the learned Member in above rulings, in view of the Full Bench ruling quoted above, the law laid in 1982 A.W.C. (Rev.) 87 and 1980 A.W.C. (Rev.) 36 cannot be deemed good law and the G.O. in question must be held to have no effect on orders imposing damages on authorised occupier of the Gaon Sabha land. 6. The other point relating to minority is equally without substance. It is noted that all proceedings were concluded on June 12, 1970 itself. Sheo Prasad merely said in his affidavit that he was minor and studying in Industrial Training Institute but failed to file his certificate of High School or of I.T.I. showing his correct date of birth. His statement taken on June 12, 1970 shows his age 18 years. So his allegation without evidence is a mere lie. He even signed form 49-Kha on June 12, 1970 and could not say that he had no knowledge of the order till August 31, 1976. His statement taken on June 12, 1970 shows his age 18 years. So his allegation without evidence is a mere lie. He even signed form 49-Kha on June 12, 1970 and could not say that he had no knowledge of the order till August 31, 1976. In fact, he was communicated the order by form 49-Kha on June 12, 1970 itself. The revision petition was rightly dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner as the order of June 23, 1977 did not suffer from any error of jurisdiction. The grounds of the present revision petition, too, are found to be baseless. 7. Accordingly, I find the revision application to be without force and it is dismissed with costs.