JUDGMENT

V. Bhargava, J. - This petition has been filed by three Petitioners who had instituted a suit under S. 20 read with S. 232 of the UP ZA and LR Act. Their suit was decreed by the trial court. On appeal that decree was set aside and an order was made by the first appellate court remanding the suit to the trial court with a direction that the plaint be returned to the Petitioners for presentation to the proper court. Against the order of the first appellate court the Petitioners went up in second appeal to the Board of Revenue which was ultimately entertained by the Board of Revenue as a revision. After hearing the revision the Board of Revenue set aside the decree pass ed by the first appellate court and dismissed the suit of the Petitioners. It is this order of the Board of Revenue which is impugned in this petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution. On the face of it the order passed by the Board of Revenue is illegal and without jurisdiction. There was no appeal before the Board of Revenue presented on behalf of the opposite party. The revision was filed by the Petitioners seeking redress against the order of the first appellate court. The Board of Revenue in these circumstances when dealing with the revision could pass only three types of orders. Either the Board of Revenue could allow the revision and thereupon confirm the decree passed by the trial court. In the alternative the Board of Revenue could dismiss the revision and let the order of the first appellate court take effect. The third was to set aside the order by the first appellate court on the view that there was no justification for return of the plaint for presentation to he proper court with a direction to decide the appeal on merits. The Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction on the basis of a revision moved by the Petitioners to pass an order to their prejudice dismissing heir suit. The order passed by the Board of Revenue is, therefore, liable to be vacated.

2. We accordingly allow this petition with costs and set aside the order of the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue will hereafter proceed to pass order in revision in one of the manner mentioned above as being the way in which that revision could have been decided. We may make it clear that we have not gone into the question of law whether the Petitioners were or were not entitled to be declared is adhivasis and whether the view expressed by the Board of Revenue in the order impugned about the interpretation of the provisions of the UP ZA and LR Act is or is not correct. That question will have to be decided by the first appellate court if and when the first appellate court is required to decide the appeal on merits and consequently that decision will nave to be given independently of the views already expressed by the Board of Revenue.