JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by Sri S.M. Hasan, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad recommending that the revision filed by Ram Sunder against the order dated August 14, 1970 passed by the Assistant Collector, First Class, Gonda in Case No. 158 under Rule 115-C, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules may be allowed and the impugned order set aside. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. On the report of the Lekhpal that the revisionist had encroached upon certain plots which were Gaon Sabha property, notice in form 49-Ka was issued to him. The revisionist filed written statement to the effect that the land was in the name of his wife Srimati Sundara who had not a lease for the same from the Land Management Committee. The learned Tahsildar found that a lease for Asami rights was granted by the Land Management Committee in favour of the wife of revisionist on May 22, 1967 but this was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer on August 1, 1968 and hence the possession of the revisionist was not unauthorised. The learned Additional Commissioner has only tool into account the fact that the lease was granted in favour of the wife of revisionist May 22, 1967, but he was failed to consider the subsequent cancellation of the lease by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the learned Tahsildar erred in law in holding that the said Patta was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer on August 1, 1968 only to the basis of the report of his office, that the provisions of Rule 115-C, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules do not apply where a person has been put in possession of the land in suit under Patta granted by the Land Management Committee and that the revisionist did not become a trespasser even after the cancellation of the Patta. 4. It is not possible to accept the contention that a person does not become a trespasser even after the cancellation of the lease granted by the Land Management Committee in his favour. The very fact that a lease of certain land is granted by the Land Management Committee is an admission by the lease-holder of the right of the Land Management Committee to let out the land. The very fact that a lease of certain land is granted by the Land Management Committee is an admission by the lease-holder of the right of the Land Management Committee to let out the land. In other words, it legally amounts to an admission that the land is the property of the Gaon Sabha. Whatever rights are conferred on the lease-holder by such a lease stand automatically terminated by cancellation of the lease by the competent authority. Thereafter the lease-holder, unless he gets the order cancelled the lease set aside, automatically becomes a trespasser on the land. 5. However, there is some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist that no order of the Sub-Divisional Officer cancelling the lease was on the record and the Tahsildar was not justified in holding that the lease had been cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer merely on the basis of the office report. Proceedings under Rule 115-C are quasi-judicial proceedings and, therefore, any order which is considered as material evidence in the proceedings must be on the record. 6. Accordingly, I allow the revision, set aside the impugned order of the learned Tahsildar, and remand the case to him for fresh decision in accordance with law after placing a copy of the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer cancelling the lease dated August 1, 1968 on record and giving due opportunity to the revisionist.