JUDGMENT R.S. Verma, Member - In a case under Section 122-B of the Z.A. Act Sarjoo was declared to be Sirdar under Section 122-B (4-F). When this order was made known in the village Lachi and several other persons filed an application for setting aside the said order dated May 24, 1976. The application was given on June 27, 1978 and it was clearly time barred. The learned Tahsildar dismissed this application on November 13, 1980 with the observation that the application should have filed an appeal against the said order. Lachi Ram alone filed a revision petition in the court of the learned Additional Commissioner who observed that though the application was time barred the court should have made spot inspection about the possession of the parties and should have decided the restoration application thereafter. He has recommended that the order of the learned trial court be set aside and the case be remanded to it for fresh decision, objection has been filed against the said recommendation. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record. There was a jurisdictional error in the order passed by the learned trial court when it declared that Sarju was Sirdar of the land in suit. The said declaration could not have been made in a case under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The proceeding against Sarju started under Section 122-B was liable to be dropped but no declaration could be made about his rights in the land in suit. This legal position has been conceded by both the learned counsels for the parties. So I allow the review and set aside the order of the learned trial Court dated November 13, 1980 and also dated May 24, 1976. The proceeding under Section 122-B stated against Sarju is hereby dropped without making any declaration about his Sirdari rights. Sarju is free to file a case under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for his declaration of rights in the land in suit.