RAJES KUMAR, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri L.K. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petition­ers, learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2, Sri Anuj Kumar, learned Counsel appears on behalf of respondent No. 3 and Sri Vishnu Sahai, learned Counsel appears on behalf of re­spondent No. 4.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners have been granted Asami lease for a period of five years vide order dated 25.4,2004, annexure-1 to die writ petition. One Vikram Singh moved an application for the cancellation of the lease. The said application was dis­missed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, vide order dated 27.1.2006. Feeling aggrieved, Vikram Singh filed revision before Addi­tional Commissioner, Saharanpur, which was allowed and the order of Sub Divi­sional Magistrate has been set aside and the lease in favour of the petitioners have been cancelled. Feeling aggrieved, the petition­ers filed revision before Board of Revenue, which has been dismissed. - Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that against the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate revision lies before the Collector and not before Additional Commissioner. He further submitted that without any material, Additional Commissioner has recorded the finding which has been confirmed by the Member, Board of Revenue that the land in dispute which was allotted on lease to the petitioners is river belt land of public utility without giving any detail of such entry in the reve­nue record. He further submitted that Member, Board of Revenue has also not considered the submission that the revision lies before the Collector and not before Additional Commissioner.
(3.) SRI Vishnu Sahai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4 supported the order of Member, Board of Revenue.;