JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—Heard Sri S.K. Tyagi learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri R.N. Rai for the contesting respondent No. 3. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12.4.2006 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Khekhara, District Baghpat as also the revisional order dated 22.6.2007 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Region, Meerut in Revision No. 52 of 2005-06. 3. Sri Tyagi has submitted that proceedings under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act for division of bhumidhari were instituted wherein the respondent No. 3 although was served notice but he did not put in appearance and therefore by the order dated 8.11.2005 the Trial Court passed an order under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act holding that each of the plaintiffs and respondents had 1/5 share in the holding. According to him the respondent No. 3 namely Sri Harish Chandra filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for recall of the order on the ground that it was an ex parte order but his application was rejected. He then filed a review application which has been allowed by the impugned order passed by the Trial Court on payment of Rs. 200 as cost. 4. Sri Tyagi states that feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed a Revision No. 52 of 2005-06 before the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Region, Meerut contending that the Sub Divisional Officer in proceedings under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act had no jurisdiction to review his order and therefore the same be set aside. However the revisional Court for the reason that the order under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was admittedly an ex parte order has rejected the revision holding that the order passed on the review application by the Sub Divisional Officer was correct. The submission of Sri Tyagi is that when there is no power of review available with the Sub Divisional Officer in proceedings under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act the application itself for review made by the respondent No. 3 was incompetent and the Sub Divisional Officer has acted without jurisdiction in allowing the review application on payment of Rs. 200 as cost. 5. 200 as cost. 5. Sri R.N. Rai learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 Sri Harish Chandra has defended the impugned orders by saying that firstly it was an order passed ex parte which is quite apparent from the order itself as also the ordersheet of the proceedings and secondly when his application for recall made under Order IX Rule 13 CPC had been rejected he was entitled to file an application for review in view of the fact that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to these proceedings. 6. He has submitted that while entertaining this writ petition the writ Court would also have to consider substantial justice done between the parties inasmuch as the respondent No. 3 was faced with an ex parte order under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and was aggrieved by the division of bhumidhari made therein. He submits that when under Section 341 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are applicable then the review filed by the respondent No. 3 was rightly entertained and the revisional Court has rightly rejected the revision of the petitioner. 7. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record at the out set it will be seen that in the revision filed the petitioner had taken a specific ground that no ground for review existed in the review application filed by the respondent No. 3. The submission before the revisional Court was that the Sub Divisional Officer does not have jurisdiction to entertain the review application. While passing the impugned revisional order the revisional Court has not adjudicated upon the aforesaid jurisdictional issue raised by the petitioner but it has rejected his revision only on the ground that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was an ex parte order. It was not a review application to review the order passed on the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC but it was an application to review the order passed directing division of bhumidhari. 8. The submission of Sri Tyagi is that if a review application was not maintainable then there is no reason for this Court to enter into the realm of substantial justice done between the parties. 8. The submission of Sri Tyagi is that if a review application was not maintainable then there is no reason for this Court to enter into the realm of substantial justice done between the parties. He states that a Court cannot assume jurisdiction at the instance of the parties and an order passed without jurisdiction would be a nullity and therefore he has contested the submission of Sri R.N. Rai by saying that the writ Court cannot enter into the question whether the impugned orders have done substantial justice between the parties. 9. Apart from the aforesaid submission Sri R.N. Rai has submitted that review application was maintainable before the Sub Divisional Officer and was rightly upheld by the revisional Court whereas Sri S.K. Tyagi has submitted that the review application was not maintainable in view of the fact that the said power is not conferred upon Sub Divisional Officer. He has referred to a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Shivraji and other v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others, 1997 All CJ 908 in support of his submission which has been distinguished by Sri R.N. Rai by saying that the power of review under Section 220 of the Land Revenue Act was with the Board of Revenue and it could not be equated and be held to be a power with the Deputy Director of Consolidation under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act while exercising jurisdiction under Section 48. 10. Be that as it may, so far as the primary objection of Sri Tyagi that the jurisdictional issue raised by him in his revision regarding power of Sub Divisional Officer to review his own order passed under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in the absence of any provisions under the statute has not been considered nor decided by the revisional Court. Therefore when the revisional Court is an authority under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act it was incumbent upon it to address the ground taken by the revisionist and as mentioned in the order regarding jurisdiction of the Sub Divisional Officer. Therefore when the revisional Court is an authority under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act it was incumbent upon it to address the ground taken by the revisionist and as mentioned in the order regarding jurisdiction of the Sub Divisional Officer. Hence the jurisdictional issue ought to have been first decided by the authority under the Act which has failed to consider the same and it would not be appropriate for this Court in its writ jurisdiction to decide the said jurisdictional issue when the authority under the Act was required to do so. 11. For the aforesaid reason the impugned revisional order dated 22.6.2007 passed in Revision No. 52 of 2005-06 Jai Prakash and Mool Chand v. Harish Chandra and others under Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the revisional Court to decide the objection of jurisdiction to entertain a review application by the Sub Divisional Officer in proceedings under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 12. Upon a certified copy of this order being submitted before the revisional authority it is expected that the same will be decided as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months from such date since the issue remitted back by this Court is only with respect to the issue of jurisdiction to entertain a review application in an order passed in proceedings under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 13. The writ petition stands partly allowed as above. 14. No order is passed as to costs. —————