JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a revision u/s. 333-A of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act filed by Ram Nagina against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur dated 23-1-1986 through which the revision filed by the opposite party Yuwak Mangal Dal against the stay order granted by the additional Collector dated 24-12-1985 restraining the opposite party no. 1 from fishing in the dispute tank was set aside. 2. The facts in this case in brief are that Land Management Committee passed a resolution in favour of the revisionist for fishing rights on an annual rent of Rs. 200/- per year for the period of 10 years on 9-6-1978 and the revisionist alleges to have deposited the required advance on the same date. The resolution was submitted to the S.D.O. Salempur for approval but he did not grant approval and returned the file for fresh auction in accordance with the latest directions of the government. The revisionist went up in revision before the Addl. Collector against that order and he sent the case back to the S.D.O. vide his order dated 28-9-1985 for granting the lease in accordance with law. Thereafter the S.D.O. called for a report from the Tahsildar who submitted his report on 4-12-85 stating that the lease be executed in favour of opposite party no. 1 namely Yuwak Mangal Dal and this report was approved by the S.D.O on 6-12-1985. Feeling aggrieved by this order the revisionist went up before the Additional Collector and made a request to restrain the opposite party no. 1 from fishing in the tank and the Additional Collector allowing the application restrained opposite party no. 1 from doing any fishing. Opposite party no. 1 went up in revision against that order before the learned Additional Commissioner who stayed the order of the Additional Collector vide order dated 23-1-1986, hence this revision has been filed against that order. 3. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. Perused the records. 4. In this revision only an short point is involved as to whether the Collector was competent to grant any stay order in the revision filed before him against the approval of the list by the S.D.O. vide his order dated 6-12-1985. 5. 3. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. Perused the records. 4. In this revision only an short point is involved as to whether the Collector was competent to grant any stay order in the revision filed before him against the approval of the list by the S.D.O. vide his order dated 6-12-1985. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that the Collector was not competent to entertain any revision against the order of approval made by the S.D.O. He argued that this auction has been made under para 60 (11) of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual and not under Rule 115-S of the Z.A. & L.R. Rules. He further argued that even if it is held that the lease was granted under Rule 115-S in that case also an objection could be filed before the Tahsildar and the Collector could hear an appeal against the order of the Tahsildar but he was not competent to entertain any revision against the order of the S.D.O. He further drew my attention to Rule 115-S (viii) proviso no. (11) which provides that the provisions of this rule did not apply to the cases in which the State Government issued a direction u/s 126 of the Act read with Rules 115-A & B. He, therefore, pleaded that the instant case where an auction has been made under para 60 of the Land Management Committee Manual in accordance with the directions of the Government no revision can he before the Collector and such revision could be entertained only by the Additional Commissioner. He referred to a ruling reported in 1986 R.D. 8 Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Semari v. Addl. Commissioner (Admin.) (H.C.) in which the Hon'ble High Court has held that such a revision can lie only before the Additional Commissioner. 6. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the granting of the stay is a discretionary matter and, therefore, no revision could be filed before the Additional Commissioner. He however asserted that the Collector is competent to entertain a revision against the order of the S.D.O. and there was no error on the part of the Additional Collector when he took cognizance of this revision. 7. He however asserted that the Collector is competent to entertain a revision against the order of the S.D.O. and there was no error on the part of the Additional Collector when he took cognizance of this revision. 7. So far as the proviso No. (11) of Rule 115-S (viii) is concerned it is apparent that the procedure provided in Rule 115-S has been specifically barred from being applied to those auctions which have been made in accordance with the directions issued by the Government under Section 126 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. In the instant case the auction has been made in accordance with the order of the S.D.O. who exercised his powers under para 60 (1) of the Land Management Committee Manual and not under Rule 115-S of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules. Consequently the provisions for the cancellation of the lease or for initiating proceedings against the order of approval by the S.D.O. cannot, therefore, be taken under Rule 115-S. Para 60 (1) of the Land Management Committee Manual itself is silent about the mode for the cancellation of patta granted under the provisions contained in that para, hence it is obvious that the Additional Collector or the Collector has no power to entertain any revision against granting of lease under para 60 (1) of the Land Management Committee Manual. The ruling however quoted above lays down that a revision can lie in such cases before the Additional Commissioner if an approval has been made by the S.D.O. The relevant observations made by his Lordship are reproduced below:- "I am of the view that permission granted by the Sub-Divisional Officer in connection with granting of lease to Respondent No. 4 vide his order dated April 19, 1984 and the proceedings decided by him (Sub-Divisional Officer) in connection with the grant of lease is revisable under Sections 333 and 333-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. There could be no denying the fact that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer passed in favour of respondent no. 4 was certainly an order and the proceedings to grant lease has been decided and Sub-Divisional Officer is certainly a Court Subordinate to the Board of Revenue and the Additional Commissioner and the grant of lease was made during the pendency of the writ petition, namely, Civil Misc. Writ petition no. 4 was certainly an order and the proceedings to grant lease has been decided and Sub-Divisional Officer is certainly a Court Subordinate to the Board of Revenue and the Additional Commissioner and the grant of lease was made during the pendency of the writ petition, namely, Civil Misc. Writ petition no. 6414 of 1984 in which stay order was granted staying the operation of the impugned order. Hence unless the aforesaid interim order was vacated the Sub-Divisional Officer has no authority to grant lease ignoring the stay order passed by this Court. I am, therefore, of the view that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in connection with the proceedings granting lease and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner holding that the revision was not maintainable are liable to be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari." 8. The view expressed by his Lordship, therefore, expressly provides that a revision against the order of the approval by the S.D.O. can be filed before the Additional Commissioner u/s 333-A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and that the Collector is not empowered to entertain such revision. When the Collector has no jurisdiction to entertain a revision the injunction order or the stay order granted by him also has to be held to be without jurisdiction and must be set aside. The learned Additional Commissioner did not commit any illegality if he stayed the operation of the stay order granted by the Additional Collector by his order dated 24-12-1985. There is no question to interfere in the order passed by the Additional Commissioner. This revision is, therefore without any merit and it is accordingly dismissed.