ORDER Ratnam, J. 1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Land Reforms dated 3.6.1983, in and by which the Commissioner of Land Reforms found that the declaration under Section 9(5) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', made by the Assistant Commissioner of Land Reforms in his proceedings dated 22.10.1982 is correct and does not call for any interference. There is no dispute that the first order by the competent Authority viz., Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, was passed under Section 9(5) of the Act. Against that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 33 of the Act. When an objection was raised by the office as to how the civil revision petition is maintainable, learned counsel made an endorsement to the effect that under Section 15 of the Act, a civil revision petition alone would be competent. That was how the civil revision petition had been entertained. Under Section 9(5) of the Act, the competent Authority is enabled to consider the objections and after giving the objector a reasonable opportunity, to pass such orders as he deems fit. This order is appealable under Section 33(1) of the Act which prohibits an appeal only against orders passed under Section 12 or Section 29(1) of the Act. Therefore, against the order passed under Section 9(5) of the Act, the appeal was rightly entertained by the Appellate Authority under Section 33(1) of the Act. Under Section 33(3), it has been declared that the order passed by the Appellate Authority shall be final. Under Section 13 of the Act, against the order of the competent Authority passed under Section 12, an appeal is provided to the Tribunal having jurisdiction over the same area. Against the order of the Tribunal, a further remedy by way of a revision to the High Court is provided under Section 15 of the Act. In this case, there is no question of the applicability of Section 15 as there was no appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Tribunal with reference to the order passed by the competent Authority under Section 12 of the Act. The petitioner cannot, therefore, fall back upon Section 15 of the Act to contend that the civil revision petition is maintainable. The petitioner cannot, therefore, fall back upon Section 15 of the Act to contend that the civil revision petition is maintainable. As pointed out earlier, the order in this case was passed under Section 9(5) and against that order, an appeal lies under Section 33(1) of the Act, and the appellate order has been declared under Section 33(3) to be final and not subject to any further revision. Under those circumstances, the civil revision petition preferred under Section 15 of the Act before this court is incompetent and cannot be entertained. Consequently, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 2. It will, however, be open to the petitioner to pursue other appropriate proceedings against the order of the Appellate Authority passed under Section 3 of the Act and in considering the availability of such a remedy to the petitioner, the concerned Authority will also take note of the fact that the petitioner had bona fide prosecuted the civil revision petition from 47.1983 till this day.