JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member. - This reference has been made by the Addl. Commissioner, (Admn.), Gorakhpur Div., Gorakhpur, dated 9-2-1984 through which he has recommended that the revision be allowed and the orders of both the courts below be set aside and the case be remanded to the Tahsildar to decide it according to law. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 3. It appears that the tenant-in-chief of the land was Shyam Sunder. On his death the Kanungo, while exercising the powers under Section 33-A L.R. Act, recorded the names of Satya Narayan and Bhagwat. Thereafter Gaon Sabha made an application to the Tahsildar under Section 34 L.R. Act alleging that Shyam Sunder had died heirless and that the Gaon Sabha be recorded in his place. This application was allowed on 8-10-1979 without any notice being issued to the heirs recorded by the Kanungo. Satya Narayan applied for restoration of the case on 18-2-1982 and the case was restored. The Gaon Sabha went up in revision before the Collector who instead of making the reference to the Board himself passed final orders and allowed the revision by setting aside the order of the Naib-Tahsildar hence this revision. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the learned Collector had no jurisdiction to allow the revision and in case he was of the opinion that the revision should have been allowed he could have made only a reference to the Board along with his grounds of recommendation and; therefore, the order passed by him is a nullity. 5. In my opinion this argument is not without force. The learned Collector had no power to allow the revision by himself under Section 218 of the L.R. Act. He had power to dismiss the revision but he could not allow it and could make only a reference to the Board on with his recommendation. The order passed by the Collector is, therefore, absolutely without jurisdiction and has to be set aside. The Naib Tahsildar has rightly restored the proceedings and his order deserves no interference. 6. In these circumstances the reference is accepted and the order passed by the Collector is set aside and the case is sent back to the Naib Tahsildar to dispose it of according to law.