JUDGMENT B. Kumar, Member - This revision petition arises out of an order dated 5.6.84 passed by Sri Bhairao Prasad, Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, in revision No. 265 of 1984/Ballia. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that tone Babban moved an application to the Collector Ballia on 28.7.1984 with the allegation that Laxman Singh, the present revisionist got his name recorded against Gaon Sabha land area 13 acres situated in village Raghunathpur tehsil Rasra and since the land in dispute has already been allotted to the landless harijans who, were already in possession, legal action should be taken against Laxman Singh after enquiry. Similar complaint was made by Babban Singh to the SDO Rasra of 4.3.1984. Apart from those applications, Ram Singh, Ram Ghiz, Ram Barai and others filed a complaint before the Collector with the contention that they being landless hrijans were allotted land situated in village Raghunathpur about 8 years back. On the strength of the lease executed in their favour, they were in possession and their names were duly recorded in the revenue papers. They were cultivating their respective plots and paying rent and irrigation charged but one Laxman Singh in collusion with the irrigation officials got his name recorded in the papers. The Collector by means of his order dated 21.3.1984 entrusted the enquiry to the Tehsildar Rasra. The enquiry was sent to naib-Tehsildar. He has submitted his report dated 4.4.1984 to the Tehsidar, clarifying that the plot number 582, 604, 856 and 679 area 6.23 acres was allotted in favour of the complainants Ram Ghiz and others by means of a resolution dated 25.1.1976. The resolution was approved by the SDO on 2.2.1976. In compliance of the SDO's order, their names were recorded in the relevant papers and they came in possession of the land. The report further reveals that Laxman Singh is recorded as bhumidhar with transferable rights against plot number 562 area 5 acre and 604 area 6.29 acres. This entry was made in execution of the decree passed by the SDO on 6.9.1965 in a suit No. 1002 Laxman Singh v. Rajroop u/s 229-B of the Act. The report of the naib-Tehsildar was forwarded by the Tehsildar to the collector on 4.4.1984. Referring to case to the SDO on 8.4.1984, the Collector made certain quarries. The SDO passed an order on 1.5.84. The report of the naib-Tehsildar was forwarded by the Tehsildar to the collector on 4.4.1984. Referring to case to the SDO on 8.4.1984, the Collector made certain quarries. The SDO passed an order on 1.5.84. It appears from his order that in execution of the aforementioned decree parwana amaldaramad was issued on 28.3.1982 to the effect that the names of Laxman Singh would be recorded against plot number 604/1 area 8 acres and 562/1 area 5 acre and the entry regarding Banjar would be expunged. the SDO found the parwana amaldaraman improper and recalled it and issued order for sending notice to Laxman Singh. Aggrieved by this order, Laxman Singh filed a revision before the Divisional Commissioner with the prayer to stay the operation of the order of the SDO. The learned Additional Commissioner declined to interfere and rejected the application on 5.6.1984. The present revision has been filed against this very order. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist has made three submission, firstly that no appeal was filed against the decree passed in 1965, secondly that no notice was issued to the revisionist and, thirdly that the report of the tehsildar dated 4.4.1984 does not make out any case against the revisionist. Sri Rajesh Kumar holding brief for Sri S.C. Rai, learned counsel for the opposite party has argued that the land in dispute was already allotted in favour of the landless persons when the ex-parte decree was obtained. His second submission is that the notice was given tot he revisionist Laxman Singh. 4. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. By means of his order dated 1.5.1984, the learned SDO has ordered for recalling the parwana amaldaramad. He had further ordered to send a notice to the revisionist Laxman Singh for putting his case so that the correctness of the parwana amaldaramad in execution of the decree dated 6.9.1965 could be ascertained. It is quire clear from this order that the decree dated 6.6.1965 was not set aside and the SDO simply wanted to ascertain whether the parwana amaldaramad was in accordance with the decree passed on 6.9.1965. I do not think that the case of the revisionist was in any way prejudiced. It is quire clear from this order that the decree dated 6.6.1965 was not set aside and the SDO simply wanted to ascertain whether the parwana amaldaramad was in accordance with the decree passed on 6.9.1965. I do not think that the case of the revisionist was in any way prejudiced. The SDO has afforded opportunity to appear before him and to put forward his case. In view of the facts of the case, the learned Additional Commissioner was justified in rejecting the stay application. The order passed by the Court below does not ball for any interference. 5. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.