Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri Babu Lal Ram alongwith S.K.Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents, Sri Mahendra Pratap and Sri P.R.Maurya alongwith Sri Anurag Yadav, and Sri Sunil Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the writ petition is being decided on its own merits without exchange of affidavits.

3. Through this writ petition the petitioners have prayed issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 25.3.2013 passed by the Tehsildar (Judicial), Sadar, Jaunpur, respondent No. 3 in Case No. 248 (Hari Cold Storage and General Mills Private Limited v. Radhey Shyam and others) and the order dated 10.5.2013 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Jaunpur, respondent No. 2. vide order dated 25.3.2013 the application of respondent No. 4 filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (for short the Act) has been allowed. However, by the subsequent order the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed with the direction to the petitioner to file an appeal against the order impugned in the revision.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the revisional Court has erred in relegating the petitioners to avail remedy of appeal against the order impugned dated 25.3.2013 passed by the Tehsildar, respondent No. 3 instead of deciding the revision himself. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 contended that the issue involved in the revision can only be decided by the appellate Court as the jurisdiction of the revisional Court is very limited and the appellate Court can investigate the fact also. Therefore, no infirmity can be attached with the impugned order and the revisional Court has rightly directed the petitioners to file an appeal against the order impugned.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the application of respondent No. 4 filed under Section 34 of the Act was allowed by the Tehsildar, respondent No. 3. It is also not in dispute that in the aforesaid proceeding the petitioner was a party and the order dated 25.3.2013 was passed after hearing both the parties.

6. Under the Act there are two sections, i.e. Section 210/211, which confers right to the tenure holder to file an appeal against various orders under the Act and Section 219 which confers the remedy of revision. For appreciating the controversy it would be useful to go through the Section 219(1), the ‘Revision’ which is reproduced herein under:

“219 Revision.—(1) The Board or the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner or the Collector or the Record Officer, or the Settlement Officer may call for the record of any case decided or proceeding held by any revenue Court subordinate to him in which no appeal lies or where an appeal lies but has not been preferred, for the purpose of satisfying himself as the legality or propriety of the order passed or proceeding held and if such subordinate revenue Court appears to have :

(a) exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or

(b) failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or

(c) acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the Board or the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner or the Collector or the Record Officer, or the Settlement Officer, as the case may be, pass such order in the case as he thinks fit.”

7. From the bare reading of sub-section (1) of Section 219 it would transpire that the remedy of revision can be availed against an order where order can be appealed but the remedy of appeal has not been availed or where against the order impugned no appeal lies.

8. Here it is not in dispute that the order impugned in the revision was appealable but in view of the language used in sub-section (1) of Section 219 of the Act the revision could be maintained against an ord