JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, J. - This is a revision against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra dated 16.7.86 dismissing the revision of Rati Ram against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mainpuri dated 11.6.85 whereby the application for restoration moved by the revisionist was rejected. 2. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that a patta of the disputed land was executed in favour of Sukhbari Lal by the Land Management Committee and he was put in possession. Subsequently the revisionist Rati Ram is alleged to have ousted Sukh Basi Lal from the land. Sukhbasi Lal, therefore applied to the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 198-A of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 on 6.10.82 to be put in possession again. 3. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer issued notice but the revisionist did not appear. He ordered for the restoration of possession to the pattedar Sukhbasi Lal by his order dated 31.1.83 and possession was also delivered to him on 30.8.83. Subsequently an application was moved by Rati Ram before the Sub Divisional Officer on 8.11.83 to the effect that no notice had been served upon him and he had no information about the delivery of possession which was not done on the spot, hence the order dated 31.1.83 be set aside and the case be restored. 4. The learned Sub Divisional Officer rejected this application on the ground that delivery of possession had already been effected and since Sukhbasi Lal is pattedar he is the rightful occupier of the land. The revision filed against this order was also dismissed, hence this revision. 5. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that he had already launched a proceeding for the cancellation of the patta of Sukhbasi Lal, hence during the pendency of those proceedings possession should not have been delivered to the pattedar. It was also argued that no notice had been served personally upon the revisionist either on the application of Sukhbari Lal or on the notice issued by the Amin for delivery of possession, hence the order passed by the trial court should be set aside because no delivery of possession was effected on the spot. 7. In my opinion this argument has no force undoubtedly Sukhbasi Lal is the pattedar and his patta still stands and has not been cancelled by any court of law. 7. In my opinion this argument has no force undoubtedly Sukhbasi Lal is the pattedar and his patta still stands and has not been cancelled by any court of law. Consequently under Section 198 A of the U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act he was entitled to be put into possession. The report of the Amin shows that the delivery of possession was made on the spot. There is no reason to disbelieve that reprot, it does not matter whether Rati Ram was present on the spot or not. In my opinion Rati Ram cannot seek any remedy in these proceedings, if he feels that he has wrongly been ousted he should file a regular suit about his title or should prosecute his case about the cancellation of patta. In either of those cases if he succeeds Sukhbasi Lal would naturally be ejected. Consequently in these proceedings there was no alternative left to the Sub Divisional Officer but to get the delivery of possession made in favour of the pattedar. His order, therefore does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity, hence the application for restoration moved by Rati Ram was rightly rejected by him and the revision was also rightly dismissed. 8. This revision too has no force and is dismissed.