JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - These three revisions have been filed by the State Government under Section 333 O U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The nature of the order of the trial court in all these revisions are the same, hence they are taken for disposal together. 2. In brief the facts of the cases are that a proceeding under Section 167 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 started in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer in which it was decided that the land sold has fragmented by the sale, hence the Sub-Divisional Officer passed order on 14.7.10987 to declare the land to be of the Gaon Sabha. Against that order appeal was filed before the Additional Commissioner who has abated the first appeal on the ground that there has been consolidation in the village. 3. These revisions has been filed by the State Government on the ground that the State Government has bot been heard when the order was passed. He also challenged the order on merit. As regards the second point raised by the learned D.G.C. (R)it can be adjudicated at revision here, but this point cannot be adjudicated whether he was heard or not? It has to be shown to the State also before the first appellate Court that he has not been heard, therefore, the State Government is directed to file an application before the first appellate court in order to show that he was not heard before the order was passed. This is a question of fact. This can be decided by the first appellate court against which court this plea has been raised. Moreover when a court passed the abatement order under Section 5 of U.P.C.H. Act the same court has also a power to set aside if the order is passed improperly and illegally. Therefore, the State Government is directed to move first appellate Court first then to avail the subsequent remedy of the revisional power under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. These revision are, therefore, summarily rejected. This order shall govern revision No. 38, 39 and 40 of 1991-92 Agra.