JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a reference made by Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur dated 12-11-1979 through which he had recommended that the case be remanded back to the trial court for retrial. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the plaintiff Mathura filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act which was contested by the revisionist-defendant. She took several pleas including the plea that the disputed land is not land within the meaning of Section 3 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. An issue to that effect was carved out and was referred to the S.D.O who decided it in favour of the plaintiff and held that the land was land within the meaning of Section 3 (14) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. A revision was preferred against that order. The Additional Commissioner has held that the finding of the trial court is beyond jurisdiction and, therefore, the case should be remanded back to it for retrial. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties, perused the records. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the land was not being used for agriculture, horticulture or pisciculture and, therefore, did not fall within the meaning of the definition of land contained in Section 3 (14) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that no revision lies against a finding recorded by the S.D.O. under Section 332-A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and, therefore, this revision should not have been entertained and should have been rejected outright. He has placed reliance @ a ruling reported in 1966 R.D. page 190-Markandey Singh v. Sheo Lok Prasad & others in which the following observation was made by the learned Member. No revision lies against the finding on an issue. 6. No case law could be cited by the revisionist as against the aforesaid ruling. Consequently. I am bound to accept the view reported in the ruling produced before me. This ruling has clearly laid down that no revision lies against the finding on an issue referred to the S.D.O. in these circumstances this revision is dismissed and the recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner is also rejected. The finding on this issue can be assailed in an appeal it is made against the final judgment.