JUDGMENT J.S. Gupta, Member. - This is a revision against the order of the learned Additional Commissioner Meerut Division, in proceedings under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. The facts giving rise to the present revision are that Kishan Lal, preset revisionist, moved an application for cancellation of allotment made by the Land Management Committee in favour of Budha and others, alleging that the land in question had been given to him on lease by the Land Management Committee on 21.6.1965 through its unanimous resolution no. 15 for plantation on trees, that the revisionist had been put in possession of the land the same day that he planted tees thereon, which have not yet become full grown that the proceedings initiated under rule 115-C of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules against the revisionist had been quashed and that the revisionist had acquired rights and interests in the learned by being a landless agricultural labourer. He alleged further that without terminating his lease and getting him evicted, the Land Management Committee could not make fresh allotment of the land in favour of the opposite parties. He prayed that the new allotments made in favour of Budha and others be cancelled. The collector asked the Tahsildar to submit a report who in turn sent it to Naib Tahsildar. Naib Tahsildar called a report from Supervisor Kanungo. The reports passed through various channels and were submitted to the collector through S.D.O. None of the opposite parties filed any objection or reply to the application of the revisionist. The learned collector or the basis of the enquiry report of S.D.O. rejected then application of Kishan Lal. Kishan Lal filed a revision before the learned Additional Commissioner which was dismissed. He has now come up in revision before the board. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. Shri S.K. Maheshwari Advocate, appearing on behalf of the revisionist argued that the approach of the courts below in this case is wholly erroneous because on the application of the revisionist for cancellation of the allotment dated 27.12.1975 the validity of the earlier allotment dated 21.6.75 could not be examined. He stated that there was no proceeding for termination of the lease dated 21.6.1965 pending before the courts below and they travelled beyond their jurisdiction. In going into the validity or otherwise of the prior allotment dated 21.6.1965. He stated that there was no proceeding for termination of the lease dated 21.6.1965 pending before the courts below and they travelled beyond their jurisdiction. In going into the validity or otherwise of the prior allotment dated 21.6.1965. He said that in the present case the revisionist was not supported to defend his own allotment as his was an application for cancellation of the subsequent allotment. He argued that no proceedings for cancellation of the allotment dated 21.6.1965 were initiates as laid down in the rules, and the procedure observed by the court below in the instant proceedings was administrative, in nature, in as much as the case was disposed of merely on the basis of the report of the S.K. and Naib Tahsildar. He pleaded that possession had been duly given to the revisionist and his name found mention in Shreni IV and proceedings under Rule 115-C of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act Rules had been quashed in respect of the land in question. He argued that no allotment could be made in respect of land in question, which was in possession of the revisionists, as it could not be treated to be vacant land on the date of subsequent allotment. He argued that the courts below acted illegally is rejecting the application of the revisionist. 4. The learned District Government Counsel (Revenue) appearing on behalf of the other side supported the judgment of the courts below. 5. I have considered the arguments, and have perused the record. There is such substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionist. It is admitted fact that the revisionist had been granted lease on 21.6.1965 for plantation of trees on the land in suit. It is obvious that on the date of subsequent allotment i.e. 27.12.1975, the revisionist was in possession of the said land, and the land, not being vacant, was not available for allotment. As the lease granted by the Land Management Committee in favour of the revisionist on 21.6.65 remained intact, and the land was not available for fresh allotments, the action of the Land Management Committee making allotments in favour of Budha and others on 27.12.1975 was wholly unjustified. Rights accrued to the revisionist on the basis of the lease granted to him by the L.M.C. after observing the necessary legal requirements. 6. Rights accrued to the revisionist on the basis of the lease granted to him by the L.M.C. after observing the necessary legal requirements. 6. The procedure observed by the lower courts is entirely illegal and full of material procedural and legal defects. If the trial court intended to cancel the allotment made to the revisionist on 21.6.1965, due legal procedure ought to have been observed by it. It is obvious that no allotment could be made when the land was not vacant, and the name of the revisionist continued to be recorded till the time, when subsequent allotment was made in 1975. Interestingly, it is accepted in the report of the Naib Tahsildar that the revisionist had in fact planted the trees, although they seem to have perished subsequently. The condition was that Gaon Sabha would provide the plants, and hence when the earlier plantation perished, it was for the Gaon Sabha to proved new plants, and the revisionist could not be penalised for the failure of the Gaon Sabha. 7. After going through the record carefully, I find that the lower courts acted illegally in refusing to cancel the subsequent allotment. 8. In the result, I allow the revision set aside the orders of the courts below, and quash the entire proceedings of allotment dated 27.12.1975. 9. The revisionist should be put back in possession of the land in question. 10. The records of the lower courts may be sent back forthwith.