By the Court.—We have heard Sri M.D. Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellants, and Sri Chandra Kesh Rai, learned standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 26th February, 1996 allowing two writ petitions filed by Gaon Sabha challenging the order dated 12th December, 1992 of the Chief Revenue Officer, Ballia.

3. Brief facts of the case for deciding the appeal are proceedings under Section 122-B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 were initiated against the appellants by issuing a notice under Z.A. Form 49-A. The notice alleged that the appellants are in unauthorised occupation of Plot Nos. 856/1/1 and 856/3 situate in Piprauli, which is a Gaon Sabha property. The notice issued under Z.A. Form 49-A was objected by the appellants and objections were filed stating that the appellants are in possession of the land in dispute from time immemorial, they have perfected their rights under Section 122- B (4-F) of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. It was also contended that by the appellants in the reply to the notice that the appellants are in possession in pursuance of their own rights and the Gaon Sabha has no concerned with the land. It was prayed that the notice be discharged. The Tahsildar after hearing both the parties made a spot inspection and came to the conclusion that the land is covered by water and is of uneven nature. It was further held that in C.H. Forms 2-A, 11 and 23 the land has been shown as Gaon Sabha land in the category of Class 6(1). The Tahsildar held that Gaon Sabha is in possession and these proceedings have been initiated to give undue benefit to the appellants. Holding the possession of the Gaon Sabha, the Tahsildar dropped the proceedings and discharged the notice. Aggrieved against the order of Tahsildar passed under Section 122-B, the appellants filed a revision before the Collector, Ballia which revision has been allowed by Chief Revenue Officer vide judgment dated 22nd December, 1992. The revisional authority decided the revision in favour of the appellants holding that appellants can only be evicted by filing a suit for eviction. The Gaon Sabha aggrieved against the order of Chief Revenue Officer filed Writ Petition No. 138 of 1993 and 139 of 1993 challenging the order of Chief Revenue Officer. The learned Single Judge by judgment dated 26th February, 1996 allowed the writ petitions, quashed the order of Chief Revenue Officer and remanded the matter to the Additional Tahsildar to decide the case afresh after making spot inspection placing a map on scale on the record showing the specific area covered by water or used for agricultural purpose. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the said order of learned Single Judge.

4. The first question which has arisen for consideration is as to whether this appeal against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 26th February, 1996 is maintainable under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court.

5. Sri Mishra submitted that the appeal is fully maintainable under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court. He contended that the Tahsildar having dropped the proceedings vide his order dated 3rd August, 1992, there was nothing to be challenged by the appellants. He further contended that in fact the revision filed by the appellants was a misconceived revision since the proceedings were dropped and there was no occasion to file the revision. Sri Mishra contended that the order of Chief Revenue Officer was nullity since the revision was required to be decided only by the Collector and Chief Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction to decide the revision. He further contended that in view of the above position the writ petition has to be treated against the order of Tahsildar dated 3rd August, 1992 and it could not be treated as a writ petition against the revisional order passed by the Chief Revenue Officer. He cont