JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member - This is a second appeal against the judgment dated January 24, 1980 of the learned Additional Commissioner by which he dismissed the appeal on preliminary ground. 2. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the file. 3. The facts of the case are that an application was filed under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. That application was rejected by the trial court by its order dated October 18, 1978. An appeal was filed and the appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner on the ground that the alleged transfer was not declared void hence it cannot be said that the application was under Section 163 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act as there was no decree hence the appeal could not have been field against such an order. On these grounds the first appeal was dismissed. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in Schedule II of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act at item No. 14 it is written that any application under Section 163 (for declaration of any transfer to be void) shall be filed in the court of Assistant Collector First Class and the first appeal shall be file in the court of Commissioner and the second appeal in Board and it was an application Section 163 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 5. The order allowing the application or rejecting the application both shall be appealable. The ground given by the learned Additional Commissioner that the order was not allowing the transfer to be void, hence appeal could not be field, is not correct. It is also contended by the learned counsel that Section 163 has been declared by Act No. 20 of 1982 with effect from June 3, 1981 and now only Section 167, which is substituted by the aforesaid Act, is in effect and only the Collector has the jurisdiction to decide such cases. 6. The learned counsel for the other side has contended that the appeal could not have been filed because the original application was filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and any order passed in this section is not appealable. 6. The learned counsel for the other side has contended that the appeal could not have been filed because the original application was filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and any order passed in this section is not appealable. He has further contended that even if it is taken that the application was filed under Section 163 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and it was wrongly mentioned as section 151 C.P.C., it was also not an application under Section 163 as it stood at the time when the application was filed. Hence the whole proceedings ab-initio is void and the application itself was not maintainable. 7. No doubt the stand taken by the learned Additional Commissioner is on the face of it is not correct. Even if this application is taken to be an application under Section 163 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, the appeal shall lie against any order where a transfer held to be void or the application was rejected otherwise. But so far as the present application is concerned, it is contended that it cannot be said to be an application under Section 163 of the Act because the application mentions that the transfer was void as it was hit by Section 168-A of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. But Section 163 of the Act as it existed at the time refers to a transfer in contravention of the provisions of Section 154 and 157-A. Hence Section 163 does not contemplate any application for holding a transfer void as it was in contravention of the provisions of Section 168-A of the Act. Thus the application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be said to be an application under Section 163 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act as it existed at that time. Now, as contended by the learned counsel for the other side, the provisions have been deleted and now after amendment of 1982 such applications can only be filed under Section 167 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and therefore this application shall be treated to be so. But it is contended that it does not hold any ground there is no provision in U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for filing any such application under Section 167 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. But it is contended that it does not hold any ground there is no provision in U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for filing any such application under Section 167 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. In Schedule II at item 15 it is written that 167 read with Section 201 and 202 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act a suit can be filed. Thus there is no provision for filing an application as it was provided under Section 163 at item 14 Schedule II of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that any person can file an application which is in respect of any harm done to the State or Gaon Sabha. 8. Hence it is contended that the original application which was filed under Section 151 C.P.C. had been filed (not by the State) but with full knowledge of the provisions existing at that time. Thus it is contended that the application has been filed at the time was not maintainable and if it is taken to be an application after the amendment of 1982, this application is not maintainable because it should have been filed, if possible, before the Collector. 9. On the basis of the reasoning given above, I therefore, allow second appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Additional Commissioner dated January 24, 1980 which was passed on preliminary grounds as mentioned above and remand the case to the court of Additional Commissioner for disposing off the same on merits in accordance with law and also to consider the arguments of parties an mentioned above.