JUDGMENT S.S. Ahmed, Member. - This is a reference made by Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, by his order dated January 22, 1971 by which he recommended that the revision filed by Baij Nath, against he order dated February 8, 1968, passed by S.D.O. Khaga, district Fatehpur, in proceedings u/s 198(2) of Act 1 of 1951, may be allowed and the order of the trial court may be set aside. 2. The brief facts of the case, relevant for the purposes of this revision, are that Baijnath Prasad and others moved an application that the L.M.C. had executed a patta in favour of Baijnath s/o Badri for plot no. 120 as asami of Jiman 3 and that the patta being illegal, it was liable to be cancelled. Notices were issued to Baijnath s/o Badri for plot no. 120 as asami of Jiman 3 and that the patta being illegal, it was liable to be cancelled. Notices were issued to Baijnath and Gaon Sabha but none of them appeared and the case proceeded ex parte against them. The trial court found that the land in suit was a tank and it has been leased out to Baijnath for irrigation purposes. Holdings that the land was a tank, used for irrigation purposes and thus a place of public utility, he held that the lease was irregular and accordingly directed that it should be cancelled. Aggrieved by this order, the instant revision has been filed. 3. The Additional Commissioner heard the parties before making the recommendation that the revision be allowed and the impugned order set aside. 4. The learned counsel for parties have also argued the case before me. 5. The learned counsel for the objector has argued that it is not clear from the order of S.D.O. whether the patta is for sirdari or asami rights. This argument is hardly tenable because it was mentioned clearly that this is an asami patta. 6. The learned counsel has next pointed out that the Land Management Committee had every right to admit the revisionist as an asami in accordance with sub-section (3) of Section 133 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. He further mentioned that a tank was 'land' as described in section 132 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and for which asami patta were permissible. He further mentioned that a tank was 'land' as described in section 132 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and for which asami patta were permissible. The S.D.O. was, thus, manifestly in the wrong in cancelling the lease which was fully permissible under the rules and the Additional Commissioner had done well in recommending that the order of the S.D.O. dated February 8, 1968. should be set aside. 7. I regret, I cannot subscribe to the views of the learned counsel. The land, in respect of which the lease has been executed, is admittedly and in disputedly a tank. It is also fully established that the lease granted in respect of this tank is an asami patta. Now the question to be decided is whether a Bhumi Prabandhak samiti is entitled to admit any person as lessee of the land in respect of this tank. The various categories of lands in respect of which asami pattas can be granted are set forth in detail in Section 132 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The word 'tank' does not find a mention in section 132 of the Act, referred to above. An effort has been made to mix up the word 'tank' with 'land' covered by water used for the purpose of growing Singhara or the other produce'. I am afraid, this is not at all the correct view of law. The word 'tank' has bee specifically mentioned in clause (vii) of sub-section 1 of Sec. 117 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. In Section 212 of the said Act 'tank' has been recognized as place of public utility. The word 'tank' does not find mention in Sec. 132 and when sections 132, 133 and 212 are read together, it would be abundantly clear that 'tank' has been recognized to be land of public utility in respect of which no asami patta is possible. The S.D.O. was, therefore, perfectly right in cancelling the lease, in respect of land which was admittedly a tank and, therefore, a land of public utility. 8. I regret to observe that the Additional Commissioner did not apply his mind to the matter at issue before the recommending that the S.D.'s order dated February 8, 1968. 9. In view of the foregoing facts, I discharge the reference, reject this revision and uphold that S.D.O.'s order dated February 8, 1968.