JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This reference has been made by the Addl. Commissioner Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur vide his recommendation dated 10-4-1991 under Section 333-A of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act against the order passed by the Addl. Collector, Azamgarh dated 1-5-1984 under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. The trial court has rejected the cancellation application vide its order in dispute i.e., 1-5-1984. Reference was made by Addl. Commissioner in a revision before him under Section 333-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 that the order passed by the trial court is against fact and law. No proper proceeding has been conducted by the trial court, therefore, the allotment of the disputed plot should be cancelled. 3. No one is present from both sides. Perused the record. 4. The revisionist has claimed that the disputed plot is his grove. This question cannot be decided in a proceeding under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. If the revisionists are denying the right and title of the Opp. Parties i.e., Gaon Sabha and Land Management Committee then the proper forum is to file a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. If the right and title of the revisionist are decided under Section 229-B of the Act the allotment shall be ipso facto void. 5. In these circumstances of the case I do not agree with the recommendation made by the Addl. Commissioner because the finding recorded by the Addl. Commissioner cannot be challenged in the revision by the revisional court. The revisional court has only power to look into the jurisdiction point of the order of the trial court and legality in the exercise of the jurisdiction. Therefore, this reference is accordingly rejected.