JUDGMENT S.S. Ahmed, M. - This is a reference made by Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, by him order dated October 19, 1970, recommending that the revision filed by Mohd. Swaleh against the order dated June 16, 1970 passed by S.D.O., Phulpur, district Allahabad in a case under Section 198(2) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act be rejected. 2. The case has had a chequered history. In January 1963 the Gaon Sabha let out the land in dispute to Mohd. Swaleh, on the basis of a Patta. Mohd. Swaleh applied for mutation of his name but his application for mutation was rejected. He went up in revision before the Board and it was on September 8, 1968 that his application was allowed and mutation was effect in his name. Shortly thereafter he applied for a Bhumidhari certificate after depositing 10 times of the rent and on November 6, 1968 a Bhumidhari certificate was issued in favour of Mohd. Swaleh. Some time later he transferred the whole or a major portion of the land in suit to Smt. Akhtari Fatima for setting up a bone factory which she did after obtaining a heavy loan from the Government. After the bone factory was set up the villagers applied that this factory should not have been permitted. In this connection a report was obtained from the Tehsildar, who secured it from the Registrar Kanungo. The Tehsildar forwarded this report to the S.D.O. on October 8, 1969 and he initiated proceedings for cancellation of Sanad by issuing notices to the parties for October 28, 1969. 3. The S.D.O. framed three issues : (i) Whether the suit is barred by time ? (ii) Whether the Patta is legal? (iii) Whether the court had jurisdiction to try the suit ? 4. The trial court treated issues Nos. 1 and 3 as preliminary issues and decided them first. It held that the suit was not barred by time and the court was quite competent to try the suit. Aggrieved by this order the instant revision has been filed. 5. The Additional Commissioner heard the parties and I have also heard their learned counsels and have gone through the records of this case. 6. In the court of the Addl. Aggrieved by this order the instant revision has been filed. 5. The Additional Commissioner heard the parties and I have also heard their learned counsels and have gone through the records of this case. 6. In the court of the Addl. Commissioner, the learned D.G.C. contended that the decision of the two preliminary issues did not amount to a case decided and hence the S.D.O.'s pronouncements on the two issues should be deemed to be an interlocutory order against which no revision lay. The Additional Commissioner agreed with this argument of the leanred D.G.C. and came to the conclusion that no revision lay against the finding on some issues only. 7. If the Additional Commissioner has confined himself to these observation, there might have been some force in his recommendation that the revision be rejected. However, the learned Additional Commissioner has also gone into the merits of the case and I find that this was neither necessary nor called for especially because he could not have dealt with the merits of the case without discussing some aspect of the matter, which are closely associated with the main body of the revision. The ancillary question are : If Mohd. Swaleh has transferred whole or part of the land in suit to Smt. Akhtari Fatima, is she a necessary party to the suit or not? Secondly, if Mohd. Swaleh has become a Bhumidhar of the land in suit and has acquired a Bhumidhari Sanad before transferring whole or part of the land of Smt. Akhtari Fatima, is it not necessary that action should first be taken under Section 137-A of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for cancelling the Bhumidhari certificate before coming to the finding whether the Patta on the basis of which the Bhumidhari Sanad was issued, is liable to cancellation or not. Finally, it would seem that while the villagers' application was primarily directed against the bone crushing factory, it has been used as the basis for initiating proceedings under Section 198 for the cancellation of the Patta. 8. In view of all these facts, I am of the opinion that the matter should be considered afresh in all its aspect and the various issues should be heard and decided together. 9. 8. In view of all these facts, I am of the opinion that the matter should be considered afresh in all its aspect and the various issues should be heard and decided together. 9. In the result, I discharge this reference, allow the revision and set aside the order of the trial court dated June 16, 1970 and direct that the case be remanded to the S.D.O. with the remark that Smt. Akhtari Fatima should be impleaded as a party and a notice should be given to her of the instant proceedings and that it should also be examined whether the Bhumidhari certificate issued in favour of Mohd. Swaleh on the basis of the Patta in question could be cancelled or not under Section 137-E, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. It is only after the cancellation of the Bhumidhari Sanad that it would be possible to take steps for the cancellation of lease on the basis of which Mohd. Swaleh acquired Bhumidhari rights. In the light of these observations, the suit should be heard and tried afresh and decided on merits and according to law. 10. Judgment dated, signed and pronounced in open court.