- (1.) THESE revision peti­tions have been preferred by Sri Rajiv Gupta, Advocate against the judgment and order dated 24-5-94 passed by learned Member Sri Nripendra Mishra, in Reference Nos. 34 to 39 of 1993-94/districtGha7.iabad.
(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties perused the records carefully. The learned Member in para 7 of his judgment dated 24-5-94 has very clear­ly mentioned that the properly in question is agricultural one and the nature so changed has not been recognised by the consolidation authorities. The order under Section 143 of the ZA Act should be passed by a competent authority i.e. SDO of the sub-division. It cannot be passed by a subordinate revenue officer. It is also obvious that the (sic) have been trans­ferred and on these points which have been discussed in para 7 of the judgment the learned Member has confirmed the judgment passed by the learned trial Court by rejecting the revenue entries relied by the learned Additional Commis­sioner. The bench is of the view that by rejecting the References made by the learned Additional Commissioner the Member has not made any jurisdictional error or has not committed any material irregularity and legality.
(3.) REVIEW petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. This order will also govern Review No. 323 (A) to 323 (E) of 1994-95/district Ghaziabad. Review petition dismissed.;