JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a revision against the order of the Collector Sitapur dated 6-11-1984 dismissing the revision filed against the order of the Tahsildar Mishrikh, district Sitapur dated 27-3-1984. 2. The facts of this case in brief are as follows. One Phool Singh was the tenure-holder of the disputed land. He executed a sale deed and got it registered on 7-12-1982 in favour of the revisionists Vishambhar Dayal and Kamal Kishore. They gave an application under Section 34 of L.R. Act for mutation in their favour on the basis of the sale deed. Their case was registered as Case No. 57 and it was decided on 28-1-1983 by Naib Tahsildar Pisawan on 28-1-1983 because no objection was filed. 3. Another sale deed of the same land was also executed by Phool Singh on 23-10-1982 and it was registered on 7-1-1983 in favour of the opposite party Ram Kishor. Ram Kishor also applied for mutation and his case was registered as Case No. 269/206/367 and it proceeded before Naib Tahsildar Chandra. On proclamation being issued the revisionist Vishambhar Dayal and Kamal Kishore filed objection that the sale in favour of Ram Kishor was illegal as sale deed had already been registered in their favour on 17-12-1982 and mutation had also been allowed by the Naib Tahsildar Prsawan in their favour. Then an application was moved by Ram Kishor before the Naib Tahsildar Chandra on 27-2-1984 that the proclamation was illegal in the case filed by Vishambhar Dayal and that the order was void, hence it should be struck off and the case be redecided after issuing fresh proclamation. This application was given by Ram Kishor before Naib Tahsildar Chandra in which he was himself the applicant. The learned Tahsildar allowed this application and set aside the order passed on 28-1-1983, hence a revision was preferred before the Collector against that order but it was also dismissed, hence this revision. 4. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties, perused the impugned orders. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued' that their cases having been decided ex parte by Naib Tahsildar Pisawan could not be reopened by another Naib Tahsildar and the latter had no jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by another court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties, perused the impugned orders. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued' that their cases having been decided ex parte by Naib Tahsildar Pisawan could not be reopened by another Naib Tahsildar and the latter had no jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by another court. It was further argued that if Ram Kishor was aggrieved by the order passed by Naib Tahsildar Pisawan he should have moved before that very court for restoration under Section 201 L.R. Act and that order could not be set aside in different proceedings pending before another court. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the proclamation issued in case No. 57 was illegal, hence the order was void and it could be set aside and it was rightly done so in the instant case and the revision is without any force. 7. I understand that there is force in the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist. The order passed in case No. 57 was final and that it could be legally set aside only by the trial court or by any superior court in appeal or revision and that order could not be set aside at least in another proceeding which was pending in another court. The opposite party Ram Kishore was actually aggrieved against the order passed in case No. 57 but the right forum for him was to nave moved Naib Tahsildar Pisawan himself for restoration. He could have moved the Tahsildar also for that purpose but another Naib Tahsildar had absolutely no jurisdiction to set aside that order in a different proceeding. Moreover the application for restoration should have been moved in case No. 57 and not in that case in which Ram Kishore was himself the petitioner. Both the cases were different from each other and the order passed in one case could have no effect on the other one unless the order passed in case No. 57 was validly set aside and both the cases were merged together. In such circumstances the order passed by the Naib Tahsildar Chandra was absolutely illegal and does not deserve to be maintained. Naib Tahsildar Chandra had no jurisdiction to set aside the order passed in another case and the restoration application should have been moved in that very case itself. In such circumstances the order passed by the Naib Tahsildar Chandra was absolutely illegal and does not deserve to be maintained. Naib Tahsildar Chandra had no jurisdiction to set aside the order passed in another case and the restoration application should have been moved in that very case itself. The learned Collector also failed to appreciate this legal position and illegally dismissed the revision. The orders of both the courts below are, therefore, wholly illegal and deserve to be set aside. 8. The revision is, therefore, allowed and the orders passed by both the courts below are set aside. Let the case be sent back to the Tahsildar for proceeding according to law.