JUDGMENT J.S. Gupta, M. - These are two reference made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, recommending that revisions filed by Lal Kesho Ram and Lala Khacheru in proceeding under section 198(2) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, be dismissed. 2. As common points of fact and law are involved in both the cases and counsels for both the parties agree, both the references are being disposed of by a common judgment. 3. It appears that a land Management committee of the village Jaula granted leases in favour of the revisionists. Proceedings for cancellation of the leases were initiated on a report to the effect that the allotments were unauthorised. The revisionist filed objections, stating that no illegality or irregularity had been committed in making the allotments. The learned trail court cancelled the leases on the ground that they contravened the provisions of section 58 of the Gaon Samaj Manual as the area of Gaon Sabha land in the village was less then 8 per cent of the total area of the village. Feeling aggrieved by this order, revisionist filed revisions before the learned Additional Commissioner, from which the present references have arisen. 4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that by G.O. No. 2067-11(23) 143 EK-Ra-13-71 dated September 9, 1978 the restriction imposed by para 58 of the Gaon Sabha Manual to reserve 8% of the total area of the village of public purposes has been revoked, and therefore, the orders of the courts below are liable to be set aside as the only ground on which the leases have been cancelled is the contravention of this paragraph. 5. The learned G.G.C.(R) appearing on behalf of the Gaon Sabha submitted in reply that subsequently by another Government order para 58 of the Gaon Sabha Manual has been restored. 6. The learned counsel for the revisionist submitted by way of rejoinder that the subsequent Government order is only in respect of lands covered by section 132 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, and that the land involved in the present leases is not covered by the classifications mentioned in section 132 of the U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act. 7. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case. 7. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case. There is substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionist. Once the restriction imposed by para 59 of the Gaon Sabha Manual revoked, the leases granted in favour of Lala Kesho Ram and Lala Khacheru on August 6, 1967 became valid and could not be cancelled on the ground that they had been granted in contravention of the provisions of the aforesaid para of the Gaon Sabha Manual. 8. In the result, disagreeing with the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner, I allow the revision, set aside the order of the Trial court and quash the proceedings. Costs on Parties. This order will also govern reference No. 2370 (z) 1971-72/Muzaffar Nagar.