JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a reference made by Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur dated 13-8-86 through which he has recommended that the revision be allowed and the order of the trial court dated 14-2-86 be set aside and issue whether the land is within the meaning of Section 3 (14) of the Z.A. & L.R. Act be referred to be S.D.O. for decision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 3. It appears that the revisionist was impleaded on his own request as a defendant after the issues have been framed in the suit and an issue had been referred to the S.D.O. for determination whether the land in dispute is land within the meaning of Section 3 (14) of the Actor not. The finding on this issue was however recorded by the A.S.D.O. and not by the S.D.O. After his impleadment the revisionist filed written statement and again raised the plea that the land was not land within the meaning of Section 3 (14) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act upon which a fresh issue to that effect was framed. The revisionist applied to the trial court to refer this issue to the S.D.O. but this plea was rejected on the ground that a finding on the issue had already been recorded and received and was already on record. A revision was preferred against this order which has come up before this court on reference made by the learned Additional Commissioner. The learned Additional Commissioner has held that the A.S.D.O. has no power and is not authorised to record any finding within the meaning of Section 331-A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and it is only S.D.O. who can do it. Hence the issue should be referred to S.D.O. for redetermination. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance upon the ruling reported in 1980 A.W.C. page 454, Mewa Lal v. Dal Singar in which it has been clearly laid down that it is the Assistant Collector i/c of the sub-division only who is competent to record a finding on a reference made to him under Section 331-A of the U.P.Z.A. &. L.R. Act. 5. I have gone through the judgment of this ruling and I find that the law laid down therein fully covers the present revision. L.R. Act. 5. I have gone through the judgment of this ruling and I find that the law laid down therein fully covers the present revision. No case law against this ruling could be produced by the opposite party. It was however argued by the opposite party that the finding recorded earlier operates as res judicata, hence a fresh finding on the same issue is uncalled for. 6. I do not think that this argument is tenable in the present case because only such finding can be held to have the force of res judicata which is recorded by a competent court. If a court is not competent to record a finding on any issue such finding would not have any effect of res judicata. In the instant case the finding under Section 331-A of the Act about Section 3 (14) was recorded by the A.S.D.O. who had no jurisdiction to record such finding, hence his finding cannot be held operate as res judicata between the parties. On the other hand it can be said that the finding so recorded by him was a nullity and had no force of law. The application of the revisionist was, therefore, bound to have been allowed by the trial court and it was unjustifiably dismissed, hence the order of the trial court dated 14-2-1986 is liable to be set aside and the application of that date deserves to be allowed. 7. After carefully considering the material on record I accept the reference and allow the revision and set aside the order of the trial court dated 14-2-1986 and order that the issue about the fact whether the land is or is not land within the meaning of Section 3 (14) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act be referred to the Assistant Collector 1st Class I/C of the Sub-Division for recording a finding on that issue.