JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a revision against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated October 31, 1983 through which the revision filed against the order of the Tahsildar, Burdhana, Muzaffarnagar dated June 8, 1982 was dismissed. 2. The facts of this case in brief are that the Lekhpal reported to the Tahsildar that the sale of a fragment in the consolidated area of plot No. 86/1/2 had been made by Sri Nanak in favour of the Revisionist Tara chand and Har Narayan and that proceeding under Section 167 Z.A. and L.R. Act should be taken against the transferors. After inquiry the Naib Tahsildar passed an order for ejectment of the transferee from the land in question and also passed the order for the correction of the record. This order was challenged in revision but it was maintained, hence this second revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that by virtue of provisions of Schedule I of the U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act the power to proceed under Section 167 of Act I of 1951 vests in Assistant Collector 1st Class and that an Assistant Collector IInd Class has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of such matter. He contended that the Naib Tahsildar is merely as assistant Collector II Class and, therefore, he had no jurisdiction to decide this case. 5. I fully agree with this, argument. The provision of Schedule I clearly indicates that only Assistant Collector of the 1st Class can pass order in cases relating to Section 167 of the same Act and that a Naib Tahsildar being an Assistant Collector II Class had no jurisdiction to decide such case. The order passed by the Naib Tahsildar in this case was, therefore, beyond jurisdiction and deserved to be set aside. The revision was, therefore wrongly rejected. In such circumstances this revision is allowed and the order of the Naib Tahsildar dated June 8, 1982 and that of the Additional Commissioner dated October 31, 1983 are set aside.