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, Moradabad Division, Moradabad dated 17.7.1990. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Virendra Singh and three others filed application under Section 198(4) of U.P. Act No. 1 or 1951 against Her Kishan and Land Management Committee, Taharpur, Pergana Bhorpur, Tehsil Chandpur, district Bijnor, that Land Management Committee has wrongly allotted plot No. 47 area 2-2-0 which is recorded as Kheda and grove. There are 15 years old 12 mango trees, 2 neem trees, 32 Sisam trees, 2 Jamun trees and 36 Ukeliptus trees. This land has been surrounded by walls by the public. He alleged that no proper meeting and agenda was carried out to allow the land. There are many other members of Schedule Caste belonging to landless category in addition to the allottee Har Kishan. The dispute plot is Devasthan. The opposite party Har Kishan appears and placed that the land was allotted to him in accordance with the rules and procedure of the allotment of the land. After the allotment he has levelled the land and had planted the trees except the old Neem trees. He also pleaded that he also used to cultivate the land and takes crops. The Addl. Commissioner vide his order dated 2.7.1990 rejected the application on the ground that the allotment made by Sub-Divisional Officer in favour of the opposite party is valid and needs no interference. Revision was filed against this order before the learned Addl. Commissioner who also came to the conclusion that the revision is not maintainable and dismissed the revision against which this appeal has been filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. A Perusal of the record shows that allottee was upheld to be admitted as non-transferable Bhumidhar of the suit plot under the provision of Section 122-B(4)(f) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, hence there is no allotment of the land by the Land Management Committee. The objection ought to have been filed against the order under which the Sub-Divisional Officer ordered that the opposite party should be recorded as non-transferable Bhumidhar under the provision of Section 122-B(4)(F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The objection ought to have been filed against the order under which the Sub-Divisional Officer ordered that the opposite party should be recorded as non-transferable Bhumidhar under the provision of Section 122-B(4)(F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The right which has been acquired under the operation of law cannot be cancelled in the provisions of Section 198(4) of U.P., Act No. 1 of 1951. If the dispute plot is Devasthan the remedy is still open to get it declared by a competent court. The whole proceeding is misconceived, therefore, this revision is not maintainable at all and is rejected.