JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - These cases are connected regarding the dispute of the same property and connected with each other, hence then taken together for disposal. 2. Four suits were filed in the trial court. They were decreed ex-parte. The State Government filed the restoration application in those four suits and the restoration application of the State Government was allowed against which revisions were filed before the Additional Commissioner which was ultimately decided by the Board of Revenue on 15-10-1973 as Revisions No. 368, 369, 370, 371 and 372 of 1970-71. From the perusal of the records it also appeared that those revisions were challenged upto Hon'ble Supreme Court of India but the order of the trial court was maintained The trial court restored the entry on the basis of the orders on the restoration application alongwith the orders of the Board of Revenue passed in above revisions. Meanwhile the person who have obtained the previous ex-parte decree filed partition suit No. 42 and a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. No. 1 of 1951 as suit No. 250 of 1978-79 under Section 229-B of the above Act and a compromise decree was also passed in the suit. 3. One Misc. application was filed by Ram Nath that the Pradhan of the Village, Inru has made manipulation to grab the Gaon Sabha land to the extent of 50 acres of land of the Gaon Sabha. The learned trial court made the Amaldaramad on the basis of order passed in the previous four suits against which order the revision was filed before the Additional Commissioner who has made this reference No. 69 of 1982-83. However the trial court have not restored the Amaldaramad in the partition suit and have rejected to make the Amaldaramad in the subsequent suit under Section 229-B filed by Inru i.e. Suit No. 250 of 1978-79. Revisions were filed against those orders before the additional commissioner who has dismissed the revisions, hence Revisions No. 26 and 48 has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 in this court. 4. A contempt application has also been filed in this court as Contempt No. 80 of 1990-91. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and Ram Nath person. Perused the record. 6. 4. A contempt application has also been filed in this court as Contempt No. 80 of 1990-91. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and Ram Nath person. Perused the record. 6. It is a dispute regarding the Amaldaramad of the various orders passed by the trial court, hence it is a case of correction of records, therefore, these references are not maintainable here but the jurisdiction vest to the Hon'ble Board of Revenue at Lucknow. In these circumstances of the case let reference No. 69 as well as Revisions No. 28 and 46 of 1985-86 and Contempt No. 80 of 1990-91 should be transmitted to the Hon'ble Board of REvenue at Lucknow. This order shall govern Reference No. 69 (Z) of 1982-83, Revisions No. 28 and 46 of 1985-86 and Contempt No. 80 of 1990-91/Azamgarh.