JUDGMENT B. Kumar, Member - This is reference No. 60 of 1986-87, Jaunpur made by the Additional Commissioner(I), Varanasi Division, Varanasi, in revision petition No. 75 of 1986 preferred by Ram Pyarey against Suresh and others. 2. Briefly state, the facts of the case are that on June 3, 1986 Suresh Ram son of Ramdeo and others made an application before the Collector, Jaunpur under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. By means of this application, the Collector was requested to cancel the allotment of the lease of a pond made in favour of Ram Pyarey Jaiswal. The main grounds were that the pond was of public utility where religious ceremonies were performed and in which Hindus took holy bath on ceremonial occasions. The pond was meant for cattle of the village to quench their thirst therein. It was also alleged that the S.D.O. in collusion with the Naib-Tehsildar in Lekhpal made the allotment of the pond in favour of Ram Pyarey Jaiswal for fishing purposes. The Collector transferred the application to the court of Additional Collector Jaunpur. On May 3, 1986, the applicant moved an application with the request to pass an order for maintaining the status quo and not to deshape the pond. On this application, the Additional Collector stayed the operation to execution of the lease and also ordered to maintain the status quo. This order was passed after hearing the opposite parties Suresh and other only. On June 19, 1986, the allottee Ram Pyarey moved an application with the contention that the lease was executed in his favour according to law for ten years and his name was mutated in Khatauani 1993-98F. It was also contended that the allottee was also sanctioned a loan of Rs. 13,960/- and that he had developed the pond for fishing. Meanwhile he had also obtained necessary training for fishing. On July 15, 1986, the learned Additional Collector rejected the application. Against this order, Ram Pyarey preferred the present revision. The learned Additional Commissioner found the orders of the Additional Collector irregular and illegal. According to him, the Additional Collector did not assign any reason for rejecting the application of the allottee ram Pyarey. With these observations, he has recommended by means of his order dated October 8, 1986 to set aside the orders of the Additional Collector. 3. The learned Additional Commissioner found the orders of the Additional Collector irregular and illegal. According to him, the Additional Collector did not assign any reason for rejecting the application of the allottee ram Pyarey. With these observations, he has recommended by means of his order dated October 8, 1986 to set aside the orders of the Additional Collector. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. The learned counsel for the opposite party Suresh has raised a legal a question that a revision is maintainable against an interlocutory order. The learned counsel for the revisionist. Ram Pyarey has pleaded that the balance of convenience is in favour of the revisionist. I agree with the learned counsel for the opposite party Suresh that no revision lies against an interlocutory order which does not affect materially the interest of the revisionist. The recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner is, therefore, not accepted and the revision petition is dismissed.