JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a reference made by Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur dated 20-2-1987 through which he has recommended that the order of the Additional Collector (Admin.) dated 16-8-1986 be set aside. 2. The facts of this case in brief are that a patta for fishing rights was obtained by the revisionist Jaggu for a period of 10 years from the L.M.C. An application for the cancellation of the patta was moved by one Rajaram on 11-10-1979. Notice was issued to the pattedar and he filed objection. His application was, however, withdrawn by Raja Ram and the Additional Collector permitted to withdraw the case by his order dated 14-8-1936 on payment of Rs. 50/- as cost but subsequently on 16-8-1986 the opposite party Ram Dhani appeared before the Additional Collector and submitted an application purporting to be under Section 151 C.P.C, and requested that the order dated 14-8-1981 be withdrawn and the case be restored and that the revisionist be prohibited from fishing in the pond. Accordingly a notice was issued to the revisionist and it was also ordered that they were prohibited from doing any fishing till the next order. This order was challenged in revision by the Pattedar. The learned Additional Commissioner after hearing both the parties came to the conclusion that the order passed by the Additional Collector was beyond jurisdiction and, therefore, liable to be set aside. He accordingly recommended to this court for allowing the revision for and setting aside the aforesaid order. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that since Ram Dhani and Raja Ram both are members of the L.M.C. hence even if Raja Ram withdrew his application Ram Dhani was empowered to get the order of withdrawal recalled and to get the case restored so as to get the patta cancelled because it was irregular. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that Ram Dhani had not instituted any separate proceeding for the cancellation of patta and since he was not a party to this proceeding. He was not entitled to infiltrate himself therein and the case could not be restored on his application. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that Ram Dhani had not instituted any separate proceeding for the cancellation of patta and since he was not a party to this proceeding. He was not entitled to infiltrate himself therein and the case could not be restored on his application. The case had already been finally disposed of and dismissed, hence the court had become in functus offitio and as such the case could not be restored on the application of an outsider. He further argued that in such circumstances the application of Ram Dhani could not be entertained by the Additional Collector and no notice was required to be issued to the pattedar and similarly no stay order could be issued against him. 6. I understand that the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist is not without force. Ramdhani was not a party to this proceeding, hence the case could not be restored on his application. He was totally an outsider for the purpose of this ease and he could not apply for the restoration of the same. Further the order of withdrawal passed by the Additional Collector was not an order for dismissal in default, hence for that reason also there was no question of its restoration. The application of Ram Dhani was, therefore, not entertain able and no stay order could be granted on the basis of the same. The learned Additional Collector, therefore, acted improperly and illegally in passing the stay order on the application of Ram Dhani, hence, such order was beyond jurisdiction and does not deserve to be maintained. 7. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that no revision could be filed before the Additional Commissioner under Section 333-A because these proceedings were purported to be under Section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. &. L.R. Act. I do not agree with this argument. The proceedings for the cancellation of patta for fishing rights are governed by the provisions of Rule 115-S of the U.P.Z.A. &. L.R. Rules in which the jurisdiction for cancellation lies with the Collector and a revision against his order is maintainable by the Commissioner or Additional Commissioner, hence revision filed in this case was entertain able by the Additional Commissioner and there is no illegality in the reference. 8. L.R. Rules in which the jurisdiction for cancellation lies with the Collector and a revision against his order is maintainable by the Commissioner or Additional Commissioner, hence revision filed in this case was entertain able by the Additional Commissioner and there is no illegality in the reference. 8. I, therefore, fully agree with the recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner and accordingly I accept the reference, allow the revision and set aside the order of the Additional Collector dated 16-8-1986.