JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, M. - This reference has been made by Addl. Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 vide his recommendation dated 30.4.1986. 2. In brief the facts of this case are that Yogendra Nath and other filed application that the disputed plot was bhumidhari of their father and it was so recorded in record operation. The Land Management Committee had wrongly allotted this plot to the allottees, hence it should be cancelled. The Addl. Collector, Gorakhour after taking the evidence of the parties camp to the conclusion that the title of the Gaon Sabha over the disputed plot is proved prima facie. The allotment has been proved by the Pradhan in his statement. He has also perused the allotment file. The allotment is valid and legal, hence he dismissed the application under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Against that order of the Addl. Collector dated 23,3.1984 the revision under Section 333-A was filed before the Addl. Commissioner, who has recommended the revision on the ground that the trial court has not discussed the evidence, hence the order of the trial court should be set aside and the case should be remanded with the direction that the trial court to decide it afresh. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist. No one is present from the side of the Opp. Parties, Perused the record. 4. The revisionist claims that the land belongs to them and they are bhumidhars of the suit plot. This question of fact cannot be considered and determined under the proceeding under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Right and title of a tenant is decided under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The trial court has given a categorical finding of fact that the prima facie title of the Gaon Sabha is proved over the disputed plot. This finding now can be challenged and rebutted only by way of regular suit. In these circumstances of the case, I do not consider it proper to interfere in the exercise of revisional power of the Board to set aside the order of the trial court. When the revisionist claims that they are bhumidhars of the suit plots they cannot be aggrieved from the allotment. In these circumstances of the case, I do not consider it proper to interfere in the exercise of revisional power of the Board to set aside the order of the trial court. When the revisionist claims that they are bhumidhars of the suit plots they cannot be aggrieved from the allotment. It is in their interest that they should establish their right and title in a proper court of jurisdiction. Therefore, the reference is not accepted and it is accordingly dismissed.