JUDGMENT

G.S. Sial, Member. - These are four connected references made by the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, arising out of a case under Section 247-B of the U.P. ZA and LR Act recommending that the revisions be dismissed. It was claimed that the share of Afaq Ahmed is ?th and the remaining 4 brothers are entitled to 5/24th share in the disputed property. The trial court held the share of Afaq Ahmad to be 1/2 and divided the remaining property between the remaining 4 brothers equally. The trial court also came to the conclusion that none of the co-sharers were found to have been holding less than 6 acres. The learned Additional Commissioner held that the revision is not maintainable because the case is covered by Section 247-B read with Section 293 of the Act contained in Chapter X of the U.P. ZA and LR Act where revision is not provided.

2. The learned counsel for the revisionist Sri R.S. Singh, stated that Section 247-B was introduced by Act 35 of 1970 and was deleted by Act VIII of 1975 and the order of Tahsildar was passed on March 16, 1973 and the order of the lower appellate court is dated December 20, 1973. He submitted that the revision against the order of the Tahsildar under Section 247-B lies before the Collector and the Commissioner under Section 218 of the UPZA and LR Act read with Section 293 of the UPZA and LR Act. He, therefore, contended that the orders of the Additional Commissioner rejecting the revisions altogether and not returning them for being presented to the proper court are not correct. The learned counsel also referred to 1975 RD 172 and submitted that the proceedings under Sec. 1247-B are administrative in nature and, therefore, no revision will lie in a revenue court. He, therefore, stated that the order of the Additional Commissioner that the revision is not maintainable is correct, but he should have directed the return of the revision application for presentation before proper forum.

3. Sri Sankahta Rai, advocate, counsel for the revisionist Ali Mohd. Khan submitted that Sec. 293 prescribes that the provisions of Chapters 9 and 10 of the ZA and LR Act will be applicable to the proceedings under Chapter 10 of the Land Revenue Act but there is no provision that chapters IX and X of the Land Revenue Act will not apply if there is something inconsistent with the Act. He referred to Section 333 of the ZA and LR Act and submitted that it fails under Chapter XII and, therefore, proceedings for revision will cover those under Chapters IX and X of the Land Revenue Act. He referred to 1968 RD 88 (para 8) in this behalf. He also referred to 1972 RD 176 (paras 8 and 9) and stated that the proceeding being judicial in nature a revision under Section 333 of the U.P. ZA and LR Act is maintainable before the Board.

4. The learned counsel further submitted that the ruling referred to by the revisionist's counsel will not be applicable as they are against the legal pronouncements of the Hon'ble High Court and the Supreme Court as well as the Full Bench decision of the Board wherein it has been held that he proceedings under Section 247-B are judicial proceedings and a revision must lie.

5. I have beard the learned counsel and have gone through the record of the case as well as the ruling cited by the learned counsel. The case pertains to determination of shares under Section 247-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, which occurs in Chapter X Land Revenue of the Act. The sections contained in Chapter X primarily deal with the determination and payment of land revenue, and not with the determination of the title of the parties. This section has been omitted by Act VIII of 1975 with the result that no action is now maintainable under the lapsed Section 247-B of the Act. The relevant portion of Section 247-B read as follows :

"247-B. (2) The share of an individual or any member of his family in a holding shall, for purposes of deciding whether he is entitled to the exemption mentioned i