All these proceedings will show that twice the Sub-Divisional Officer has exercised the revisional power under Section 257 at the directions of the Collector,namely the RTS Revision No.14 of 1984 and RTS Revision No.12 of 1999.It will further reveal that the appeals as against the RTS Revision No.14 of 1984 was preferred by the parties in view of the provisions of Section 247 and 249 sub-section 2.It will equally appear that when the orders were passed in Revision Application No.12 of 1999 before the Sub Divisional Officer in exercise of the powers under Section 257 the parties have preferred two RTS appeals in view of the provisions of Section 247 and 249 sub-section 2.Not only that,thereafter the RTS Revision Application No.330 of 2001 was also preferred before the Commissioner and if the view is taken that the second revision is not tenable then in that circumstances since the first order passed in RTS Revision No.12 of 1999 is a revisional order,this second revision before the Commissioner being RTS Revision No.330 of 2001 would not have been tenable