JUDGMENT Nathoo Lal, Member - This is a revision preferred by Ramesh Chand impleading Gaon Sabha Dhatra Khurd of district Aligarh and State of U.P. as opposite parties against the Judgement and order dated 5-7-84 passed by the Additional Collector Aligarh in revision No. 37 arising out of the Judgement and order dated 19-1-83 of Tahsildar Hathras passed in case no. 17 under Section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act (Gaon Sabha Dhatra Khurd v. Ramesh Chand and others). 2. The facts of the case in brief are that ejectment proceedings against the revisionist were initiated on the complaint made by the Gaon Sabha Dhatra Khurd Pargana Mursan, Tahsil Hathras district Aligarh in the court of Tahsildar Hathras. During the proceeding before the Tahsildar, an application was moved by the opposite-parties with the allegations that a suit under Section 229-B was pending about the land in question and therefore since the question of title is involved, the present proceedings of ejectment should be dropped. This request was turned down by the trial court under his order dated 26-3-79, against which a revision was preferred before the Commissioner Agra Division Agra being revision No. 74 of 1978-79 Ramesh Chand v. State of U.P., which was dismissed on 3-8-80. Now after completing the enquiry the proceedings were disposed of by the Tahsildar Hathras under his order dated 16-4-82 whereby the revisionist was held to have been in the unauthorised occupation of the Goan Sabha land comprising of khasra no. 42 Min, 43 Min and 44 Min of the village. The revisionist went in revision against the order before the Additional Collector Aligarh and this revision No. 70 of 82-83 ,was disposed of under his order dated 7-10-1982 setting aside the order of the Tahsildar dated 16-4-82 and remanding the case for decision afresh on merits. Finally the trial court of Tahsildar Hathras decided the proceedings under his order dated 19-1-83 whereby the ejectment proceedings have this time been dropped. The Gaon Sabha concerned feeling aggrieved of this order came in revision before the Additional Collector Aligarh. Against the order of the trial court and in disposal of this revision the Additional Collector has dismissed the same with the observations in addition to send back the matter to the S.D.O. for making fresh inquiry and taking suitable action in accordance with the observations made. Against the order of the trial court and in disposal of this revision the Additional Collector has dismissed the same with the observations in addition to send back the matter to the S.D.O. for making fresh inquiry and taking suitable action in accordance with the observations made. It is against this order dated 5-7-84 that aggrieved Ramesh Chand has come to this court in the present revision. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 4. It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for revisionist that the main question involved in this matter relates to the jurisdiction and it is to be seen whether the Collector did have jurisdiction to entertain the revision in view of the legal implications on the subject. The learned counsel has further contended that the observations made by the learned Additional Collector and the conclusions drawn by him are contradictory and cannot be appreciated on any ground. 5. The D. G. C. (R) on the other hand has pointed out during the course of his arguments that under the old law the powers vested in the Collector under Section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act were being exercised by the Tahsildar as delegated powers and accordingly against the order passed by the trial court the revision under that law did lie before the Commissioner but in June 1981 there came legislative changes and the law amended conferring sole powers on the Tahsildar to have jurisdiction under Section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A, & L.R. and in that view of the matter the revision now lies before the Collector and his decision has been made final for that purpose. The learned D. G. C. (R) has made contentions that in the present case under consideration the proceedings were started in 1978 and accordingly the revision actually lies in such cases before the Commissioner and not before the Collector because on the enforcement of the provisions of the amended law the proceedings pending under the old provisions of law were to be disposed of according to the old procedure. The contentions of the learned D. G. C. (R) that in the light of the above observations the revisions preferred first by the revisionist Ramesh Chand and then by the Gaon Sabha before the Collector, both have wrongly been preferred and the Collector did not have jurisdiction to pass orders. The learned D.G.C. (R) has further gone to say that the revision filed before the Additional Collector on 7-10-1982, which resulted in remand and consequent upon which the order of the trial court dated 19-1-1983 vacating the notice and dropping the proceedings was passed became without jurisdiction and as such the order of remand of the Additional Collector itself as well as the resultant order of the trial court, all were without jurisdiction, meaning thereby that if both the orders of the Additional Collector were without jurisdiction the orders passed by the trial court consequent upon the orders and directions of the revisional court also became without jurisdiction and all of those orders must be set aside. 6. In reply, the learned counsel for the revisionist has only stated that since the old orders have not been challenged in the present revision there is no question of setting them aside and to decide the revision only with regard to the impugned order, has been pressed. 7. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and I find every reason to agree with contentions made by the learned D.G.C. (R) so far as the matter of jurisdiction and its wrongful exercise under Section 122-B as its provisions stood before its amendment and also came to stand after amendment, are concerned. The amendment has itself clarified in specific words that all proceedings under Section 122-B of the said Act as it existed immediately before the commencement of this section and pending before any officer, court or authority on the date of such commencement shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of such Act as if this Act had not been passed. Thus it is clear that on the authority of the legal provisions of the amended law of Section 122 B, the revision first preferred under Section 333 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act before the Collector/Additional Collector against the order of Assistant Collector/Tahsildar dated 16-4-1982 was without jurisdiction for the simple reasons that the present proceedings under the provisions of old law as it existed prior to the amendment were pending before the Collector and under his delegated powers before the Assistant Collector/Tahsildar and the revision did not lie against the order of the Collector or of the Officer or court acting on his behalf under delegated powers, before the Collector himself and the jurisdiction was clearly open for revision to be preferred before the Commissioner. Since the Additional Collector did not have any jurisdictional power to be exercised to entertain and dispose off the revision filed before him, the order passed by him on 7-10-1982 was quite illegal being without jurisdictions and consequently carrying no legal effects on the order of the trial court dated 16-4-82. As a result, all the proceedings taken onwards by the trial court and consequently the orders passed by the revisional court are also without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. 8. Thus I am of the definite opinion that the orders passed in revision on 7-10-82 and subsequently on 5-7-84 including the order of the trial court dated 19-1-83 do not have any legs and feet to stand and must be quashed. The above orders are accordingly set aside upholding the order of the trial court of Assistant Collector/Tahsildar Hathras passed on 16-4-82 in case no. 131 under Section 122-B of Z. A. Act in the present case under consideration and the revision is decided and disposed off accordingly.