JUDGMENT Abhinava Upadhya, J. Heard Learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ashish Kumar Srivastava for the gaon sabha. Learned Standing Counsel represents the State-respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has come to this Court for deciding representation filed before the District Magistrate, Mainpuri against the entries made in the revenue record in favour of Ram Kishan, respondent no. 5. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the entries have been made on the basis of a sale deed executed by the earlier land holder without prior approval by the Collector and, therefore, such transfer is barred by Section 157A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short 'the Act') 4. From the complaint it appears that the complaint has been made to the District Magistrate. 5. If the petitioner claiming himself to be a villager is aggrieved by any transfer, then the petitioner has a remedy of filing an appropriate application under the Act, but the application or representation, as filed by the petitioner, cannot be directed to be decided by this Court. 6. The writ petition has no merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed.