JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This revision has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur dated 28.5.1992. 2. In brief the fact of this case that Pokhari no. 69 are 2.41 acre was leased out to the revisionist on 31.1.1982 for pisciculture for a period of 10 years. When the period expired the revisionist applied to the Sub-Divisional Officer to extend the lease for a period of 10 years by way of renewal. However, the disputed Pokhari was put to auction and the revisionist bid was Rs. 22000/- as an auction bid annually. The opposite party Hari Ram was afforded to be Rs. 20,500/- . The Sub Divisional Officer however accepted the bid of Hariram of Rs. 20,500/- on 12.2.1992. Against this order of the Sub Divisional Officer revision filed before the Additional Commissioner under Section 333-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 In that revision stay was granted to the revisionist by the learned Additional Commissioner on 20.2.1992. However the learned Additional Commissioner after hearing both the parties vacated the stay on 28.5.1992 against which this revision has been filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist on the point of admission. 4. The allotment has not been challenged. Only the acceptance of lower bid has been challenged and the learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the revisionist are fishermen and the opposite party is also fisher man. They belong to one category therefore, the highest bid should have been accepted. Accepting of bid than the annual highest bid was made in an administrative matter which need to be decided judiciously and equally so that there should be no loss to the Land Management Committee and also no loss to the revisionist as well as other. The point which has been argued before me need to be decided by the Collector how the Sub-Divisional Officer has accepted a lower bid in the auction of the pond amongst the same category of the bidders. The revisionist has also been in possession for 10 years and he must have incurrent some expenditure by way of improvement in the pond for pisciculture how his bid was not considered. 5. The revisionist has also been in possession for 10 years and he must have incurrent some expenditure by way of improvement in the pond for pisciculture how his bid was not considered. 5. I, therefore, direct the collector, Gorakhpur to obtain the petition of the revisionist on this point and summon the opposite party and hear both of the parties and decided these issues within a month. However this revision will remain pending in this court till further orders.