JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a revision against the judgment and order dated January 30, 1974 passed by Sri R.L. Sharma, Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, in appeal No. 77/96 of 1972-73 against the order dated July 17, 1972 passed by the Additional Sub-Divisional Officer, Lalitpur in suit No. 88/8 under Section 198 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. 3. Joja had filed a suit under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act seeking a declaration that the lease granted to him by the Land Management Committee Simariya on September 25, 1967 in respect of plot Nos. 68-M 345/2, 346/3, 328 and 329 with a total area of 6.25 acres is valid and praying for the cancellation of the order dated August 12, 1971 passed by the S.D.O. Lalitpur cancelling the said Officer decreed the suit in respect of lease. The Additional Sub-Divisional plot No. 68-M area 1.34 acres and dismissed it with respect to the remaining plots. Only the State of U.P. filed an appeal against this order. The Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Additional S.D.O. and dismissed the suit. Joja has now come up in revision against this order. It would be seen that no appeal or revision is pending regarding the dismissal of the suit in respect of 5 plots i.e. plot No. 5. 345/2, 346/3, 328 and 329. The scope of revision is confined only to plot No. 68-M. 4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the land granted to the revisionist was already recorded in class G of Khatauni of 1376F and 1379F in the name of the revisionist and the revisionist was cultivating it and later on the aforesaid land was granted to the revisionist in lease by the Land Management Committee and the court below committed an illegality in cancelling the lease on the ground that the land was not vacant. This contention is not a sound one. This contention is not a sound one. Section 195 of the U.P. Land Reforms Act reads as follows: "Section 195 Admission to land: The land Management Committee with the previous approval of the Assistant Collector in-charge of the sub-division, shall have the right to admit any person as Sirdar to any land (other than land failing in any of the classes mentioned in Section 132) where: (a) The land is vacant land, (b) The land invested in the Gaon Sabha under Section 117, or (c) The land has come into the possession of Land Management Committee under Section 194 or under any order provision of this Act." 5. Thus, the first requirement before any land can be allotted by the Land Management Committee is that it should be vacant and and the second requirement is that it should either have vested in the Gaon Sabha under Section 117 or should have come into the possession of the Land Management Committee under any provision of the Act. Land which is in the cultivatory occupation of any person irrespective of the status of such person cannot be deemed to be either vacant land or land in the possession of the Land Management Committee. Thus the allotment of land by the Land Management Committee to a person already occupying it in any capacity whether as a trespasser or a tenure-holder is in contravention of the law. 6. The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the lease was granted to the revisionist in 1967 and was cancelled after a period of 4 years and in between the plaintiff spent labour and money to improve the productivity of land. According to the learned counsel there was material irregularity in ignoring the possession of the land. As regards the period of limitation, the S.D.O. is empowered to take suo moto action within three years from the date of his knowledge. Thus, there is no illegality or irregularity if the S.D.O. cancelled the lease within three years from the date of knowledge irrespective of the date of the execution of the lease. As regards the question whether any consideration should be shown to the revisionist on the ground of expenditure of labour and money to improve the productivity of the land, I shall come later to this aspect. As regards the question whether any consideration should be shown to the revisionist on the ground of expenditure of labour and money to improve the productivity of the land, I shall come later to this aspect. The third contention is that the lease could not be cancelled on the ground that the revisionist's father had three acres of land in his name. This contention in correct. The land is situated in Bundelkhand. If the father's land is taken into account to considering the status of the revisionist he would come under category (h) of Section 198 a Bhumidhar, Sirdar or Asami holding land less than 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres). The learned counsel for the revisionists however argued that the land in the name of the father should be excluded and the revisionist should be considered to belong to the category (g) "any other landless agricultural labourer residing in the circle. In any case, I find that the Sub-Divisional Officer in passing the order dated August 12, 1971 has not taken this fact as a ground for cancelling the lease and, therefore, the fact of father having three acres of land cannot now be taken a ground for cancellation of the lease in the court of the Additional Commissioner. 7. The fourth and the most significant contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the trial court as well as the appellate court did not appreciate the documentary evidence adduced by the village Lekhpal in support of the agenda proclamation and has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them. I find that the S.D.O. had cancelled the lease on the following grounds: (a) The land was already recorded in the name of the revisionist in verg 4 in 1375F. (b) The proceedings for the resolution were incomplete as no person other than the revisionist was granted land and (c) The land granted in lease was in excess of 10% of the land of the Gaon Sabha. 8. I find that only the first ground is borne out from the record and that too in respect of five plots, but not for plot No. 68-M. A perusal of the certified extracts of the proclamation issued, notice of the meeting and extract of the proceedings register of the Goan Sabha show that all the proceedings were in fact duly held. There is no evidence to show that the meeting of the Land Management Committee was not duly held or that the resolution was not passed in a regular manner. The ground that the land which was leased was less than 10% of the Gaon Sabha land is very vague. There is no evidence on the record to show the total cultivated and uncultivated area of the village, the 10% area reservation and the area leased out. It was the duty of the State to produce this evidence. In the absence of any such data the ground cannot be accepted. Now I may come to the question whether the revisionist deserves any sympathy on the ground of having spent money and labour in between the land cultivable. Strictly under the law he is not entitled to any such sympathy if the lease is held to be illegal. However, after considering all aspects of the case I hold that the trial court had correctly dismissed the revisionist's suit in respect of plot No. 68-M (are 1.34 acre) and dismissed it in respect of the remaining plots. The learned Addl. Commissioner has erred in exercise of his jurisdiction in setting aside the judgment of the trial court and dismissing the entire suit. Ample justice would be done to the revisionist he is now allowed to retain the lease of plot No. 68-M but made to surrender the remaining plots. 9. The result is that I hereby allow the revision set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner and restore the order of the Additional S.D.O.