JUDGMENT R.K. Dhusiya, Member. - This reference has been made by the learned Additional Commissioner by his recommending order dated 29.7.1991 by which he has recommended to set aside the order dated 29.6.1990 of the trial Court and to maintain the lease of the revisionists. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the disputed land was allotted to the revisionists. On the complaint of Sri Dhruv Chandra and others the proceeding for cancellation of lease vas initiated. The sub-Divisional Officer, Sahajanwa enquired into the matter and submitted his report to the Additional Collector; the Additional Collector by his order dated 20.6.1990 cancelled the lease. Aggrieved by that order a revision was filed before the learned Additional Commissioner who by his order dated 29.7.1991 made a recommendation to this court. Hence, the instant reference has come up before me. 3. The learned counsel for the revisionists has argued that the lease was granted for the purpose of making house and the revisionists have got constructed their marahi etc. It has also been argued that the learned Additional Commissioner has considered all the aspect of the case and has rightly recommended to maintain the leases granted to the revisionists. As such, the recommendation made by him is liable to be accepted. In reply the learned D.G.C.(R)b has argued that the order of the learned Additional Collector was passed under Section 122-C(6) of the Act and as such the order in question is not revisable by this court. The Learned counsel for the revisionist further argued that the impugned order was passed under Rule 115-P of Z.A. and L.R. Rules and not under Section 122-C(6) of the Act and as such it was revisable. The learned D.G.C.(R) in support of his contention cited a ruling reported in 1992 RD p. 89. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and learned D.G.C.(R) and have also seen the relevant papers on the file. 5. From the perusal of file it is clear that the lease has been given under Rule 115-P of Z.A. and L.R. Rules. It is settled law that the order passed by the Collector under Section 122-C (6) of the Act, is not revisable by this court in view of the provisions of Section 122-C(7) of the Act. 5. From the perusal of file it is clear that the lease has been given under Rule 115-P of Z.A. and L.R. Rules. It is settled law that the order passed by the Collector under Section 122-C (6) of the Act, is not revisable by this court in view of the provisions of Section 122-C(7) of the Act. In the aforesaid case it has been held that every abadi patta given by the LMC or SDO since 25.4.1971 is covered by Section 122-C of the Act, and the order passed in connection with its cancellation by the Collector or Additional Collector is nothing but an order passed under Section 122-C(6) of the Act. It will make no difference whether Rule 115-P or Section 122-C(6) is mentioned in the order. This order will not be revisable by this court or by the Commissioner under Section 333 or 333-A of the Act, and as such, the ruling reported in 1992 R.D. p. 89 is fully applicable to the present case. 6. In view of the above, I find that the revision filed against the order of Asst. Collector dated 29.6.1990 is not revisable and hence, the instant revision/reference is dismissed accordingly.