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 Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad dated 1.311988, Passed in Revision No. 67 of 1988 arising out of the order of the Additional Collector dated 28.12.1987 passed in a proceeding under Section 198(4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. The proceeding for the allotment was filed by the revisionist on the ground that he is in possession from 1940 on the basis of patta executed by the intermediaries at that time. The allotment in favour of the opposite parties is without meeting and agenda and they are not entitled for the allotment. The learned trial court dismissed the application on the ground that the applicant has failed to prove his case in a title suit when he was directed by the court in a proceeding under Section 122-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. He has also not accepted the contention of the revisionist-applicant that the allottee need permission under Section 28 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act as they are neither the members and nor the office bearers of the Land Management Committee. Revision was filed before the Commissioner under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against that finding of the trial court. The Commissioner dismissed that revision, hence this revision under Section 333 of the Act has been filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist. No one is present from the side of the opposite parties. Perused the record. 4. Main cause of action of the revisionist that he is in occupation of the dispute plot from 1940. If his contention is correct he ought to have gone for a title suit and the decision of that title suit will prevail over the allotment proceeding and the order under this proceeding. In a way he has denied the right and title of the Gaon Sabha, therefore, he is not entitled to challenge the proceeding of allotment. Therefore, this revision has no force and it is accordingly dismissed.