JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member. - This is a reference made by Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra dated 30-1-1985 where by he has recommended that the order of the Additional Collector, Mathura, dated 12-1-1984 be set aside and the case be remanded have it him for re-trial directing him to exercise sou-motu powers. 2. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that a patta for housing site was executed in favour of opposite parties Ram Singh and others by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 122-C. An application for cancellation of these pattas was moved by Happu and one Ganga Sahai on the ground that the land was in their possession and could not be allotted by the Sub-Divisional Officer. 3. On an objection filed by the pattedars this application was rejected by the Additional Collector vide order dated 12-1-1984. 4. Happu want up in revision before the Additional Commissioner who came to the conclusion that the learned Additional Collector should have exercised sou-motu powers and should have be cancelled the pattas. He has therefore, recommended that the case be remanded have to the trial court with the direction to start suo-motu action against the pattedars. 5. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party argued that since the patta had been executed under Section 122-C no revision could lie against that order according to Section 122-C (vii) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, hence the recommendation made by the Learned Additional Commissioner should not be accepted and the order of the trial court should be upheld. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the pattedars do not belong to scheduled caste and this provision does not apply to them. 8. The pattedars in this case are Kumhars who are village artisans. Sub-section (3) of Section 122-C clearly lays down that the village artisans can also be granted patta under the provisions of this section by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Consequently under Section 122-B (3) (2) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 the pattedars in the present case were also eligible to get the pattas through the Sub-Divisional Officer for abadi site, hence the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer or by the Additional Collector under Sub-Section 6 of the said section are final and provisions of Section 333 of the Act do not apply to them. Consequently no revision could lie against the order of the Additional Collector because it has become final under Subsection (7) of Section 122-C and so this revision was not maintainable and should have been rejected on this ground alone. The Learned Additional Commissioner has failed to have examined this provision and that why he has made this reference under wrong notion of law. Such reference, therefore, cannot be accepted and is liable to be rejected. 9. In the result the reference is rejected and the revision is dismissed. The revisionist may seek his remedy by filing a regular suit.