JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - In This revision reference has been made by the Addl. Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra vide his order dated 10.9.1990. That revision arises against the order of the Additional Collector Aligarh dated 22.3.1990 in a proceeding under Rule 115-P of U.P.Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. The trial court came to the conclusion that no allotment of abadi land was done to the opposite party, hence there is no question of cancellation of lease under Rule 115-P of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. However the re-visional court recommended that there is sufficient ground to prove that the allotment has been done fictitiously and it should be cancelled. The finding of fact recorded by the trail court will be final. However the re-visional court cannot come to its own conclusion against the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that this revision is not maintainable in view of the law point laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in 1992 R.J. page 1; that the proceeding under Rule 115-P of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 in the court of Additional Collector when decided is final no revision is maintainable under Section 333-A and 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist is not present, however he cannot be aggrieved from the order of the trial court. The learned D.G.C.(R) has also been heard. 5. I agree with the view of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that no revision is now maintainable against the order of the Collector under Rule 115-P of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, hence the reference is not accepted and the revision is accordingly rejected and the order of the trial court has become final for the purpose of this proceeding.