Raghubar Dayal, J.
1. This is a revision against the order of the Assistant Collector, 1st class, Dehra Dun, in connection with an application for injunction prayed against the defendants with respect to their making construction on the tenancy land in suit. The application was made in a suit under Section 171, U.P. Tenancy Act for the ejectment of the tenants and the alleged sub-tenants.
2. A preliminary objection has been taken that no revision lies to this Court. I agree with the objection.
3. Section 276, U.P. Tenancy Act, empowers this Court to call for the record of any suitor application which has been decided by any subordinate revenue Court, and in which an appeal lies to the District Judge and in which no appeal lies to the High Court as the case may be, and if the District Judge or such subordinate Court appears to have acted in either of the ways mentioned in Clauses (a) to (c) of the section. It is not disputed that no appeal lay to the District Judge from the decree under Section 171 of the Act. When no appeal lay to the District Judge against the decree, no appeal against the order in suit could have lain to the Court of District Judge in view of Section 271 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the applicants argues that this Court has revisional jurisdiction over all the suits and applications which are decided by revenue Courts and that its revisional jurisdiction is not restricted only to such suits and application in which appeals lay to the District Judge. I do not agree. To my mind there are three conditions to be satisfied before this Court can exercise revisional jurisdiction over the suits or applications decided by revenue Courts. Of course, the first condition is that the decision should be of a revenue Court which is subordinate to this Court; the second is that an appeal should lie to the District Judge and that no appeal lay to this Court and the third is that the District Judge or the subordinate revenue Court should have acted in one of the manners indicated in Section 276 of the Act. If the interpretation of the learned Counsel for the applicants is accepted, it would appear that at least in suits which have been decided by subordinate revenue Courts, both the High Court and the Board of Revenue will have revisional jurisdiction under Sections 276 and 275, U.P. Tenancy Act respectively. This cannot be the case and could not have been contemplated by the Legislature. There is nothing in the Act to indicate as to which of the two Courts in such circumstances should have a final word. I am, therefore, of opinion that no revision lies to this Court against the order in revision.
4. It has been prayed that this revision application be returned for presentation to the proper Court. I do not see any point in returning this revision which does not lie to this Court when the applicants are free to file a fresh revision application before any Court competent to entertain it in the absence of statutory period fixed for the presentation of the revision application.
5. I, accordingly, dismiss this revision with costs.