S.P.PANDEY, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act (here in after referred to as the Act) preferred against the judg­ment and order dated 21-12-1998 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, in revision petition No. 4 of the 1998-99/J.P. Nagar arising out of an order dated 6-10-1998 passed by the learned trial Court in suit No. 110 under Seetion 176 Of the Act.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that the revisionist Gyan Chandra instituted a suit underSection 176of the Act fordivisionof holding amongst the parties concerned claiming 1/3 share and the remaining 2/3 share of the defendants 1 and 2 which vas not contested by the defendants and there­fore, the learned trial Court passed the preliminary decree accordingly and or­dered for the preparation of the lots on 19-11-1996. The Lekhpal concerned filed the lots on 20-7-1998 giving 2.97 hectares to the revisionist and the rest of the area 4.148 hectares to the defendants on the basis of possession of the parties con­cerned. The learned trial Court after com­pleting the requisite formalities cancelled the lots filed by the Lekhpal and ordered for rc-paration of lots on 6-10-1998. Ag­grieved by this order a revision was preferred. The learned Additional Com­missioner vide his order dated 24-12-1998 dismissed the revision petition. It is against this order that the instant second revision petition has been preferred before the Board. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record on file. For the revisionist it was contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Courts below are no orders in the eyes of law as they have clearly ignored the provisions contained under Rule 131 of the Act which provides for partition of the holding on the basis of possession of the tenure-holders under clause (c) ; that the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below cannot be sustained in law as they arc against the provisions of Rule 131 (e) of the UPZA and LR Rules which also provides for division on the basis of actual physical possession and the observations to the contrary of the learned trial Court are illegal in law ; that in any view of the matter, the orders passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, perverse and suf­fers from jurisdictional error and deserve to be set aside. In reply the learned Coun­sel for the opposite party urged that since this is a second revision petition preferred after the amendment of Section 333 of the Act by Act XX of 1997 by which there is no provision for second revision this revision petition is not maintainable and as such the same deserves to be dismissed outright ; that on merits the learned Court below was perfectly justified in dismissing the revision petition as the learned trial Court has passed the impugned orders in correct perspective of law, keeping in view the provisions on the subject as well as the facts and circumstances of the instant case and as such the impugned orders arc liable to be confirmed.
(3.) I have closely and carefully ex­amined the submissions made before me by the learned Counsel for the parties and the relevant records on file. Section 333 (2) of the Act after the amendment by Act XX of 1997 reads as under: "(2) If an application under this section has been moved by any person either to the Board or to the Commissioner or to the Addi­tional Commissioner, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by any other of them." A bare perusal of the relevant record clearly reveals that Gyan Chandra had preferred the first revision petition before the learned Additional Commissioner which stood dismissed on 24-12-1998 and the same Gyan Chandra has also preferred the instant second revision petition before the Board on 9-2-1999. The above provisions makes it amply clear that after passing of the Act XX of 1997, effective from 18-8-1997, on second revision peti­tion can be entertained by the Board and as such this second revision petition is not maintainable in law.;