JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference, made by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, recommending that the revision filed by Bhup Narain, against the order dated 23.1.73 passed by the Collector, Farrukhabad, in a case under section 198(2) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, may be rejected. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The facts are as follows. The opposite party, Ram Krishna filed an application before the Collector. Farrukhabad on 9.11.70, alleging that he was in possession over plot no. 144/9 area 4 Bighas in Village Kalri Gangpur for a long time but the Land Management Committee had in an irregular manner granted a lease on 8.7.70 in favour of Bhup Narain. It was alleged that Bhup Narain already had 20 bigha of land and further the entire proceedings have been done in an irregular and fictitious manner. After making due inquiry the Collector by his order dated 23.8.73 cancelled the lease. This order has been challenged in the present revision. 4. The grounds taken in the revision are; firstly, that the revisionist was a landless person and his pattas has been wrongly cancelled; secondly, that the order of the learned Collector was no order in the eye of law; thirdly, that the learned Collector illegally held that a person cannot be allotted land twice; fourthly, that the proceedings are time-barred; fifthly, that the necessary parties were not impleaded and lastly that the learned Collector failed to consider the oral and documentary evidence on record. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist has cited Sunder Lal v. State of U.P., 1976 R.D. 240 in which it has been held that in proceedings under Section 198(2) U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, the Land Management Committee has to be impleaded as a necessary party. I find from the record that the Gaon Sabha through the Pradhan had been impleaded in the proceedings, further the Pradhan Gaon Sabha, who has also been Pradhan of the Land Management Committee, was examined as a witness and the register of the proceedings of the Land Management Committee had been filed. Thus the Land Management Committee was fully in the picture and the fact that the Gaon Sabha and not the Land Management Committee has been impleaded, is not a material illegality or irregularity which will justify an interference in revision. 6. Thus the Land Management Committee was fully in the picture and the fact that the Gaon Sabha and not the Land Management Committee has been impleaded, is not a material illegality or irregularity which will justify an interference in revision. 6. The oral and documentary evidence on record has been duly considered by the learned Collector and the Collector's finding is that the revisionist was not a landless person. On the other hand, the Khatauni of 1379 F clearly established that the he had plot no. 20M area 1.14 acre and 21M area 1.56 acre, on an annual land revenue of Rs. 8.70. The material question is not the land was allotted to the revisionist twice. The material point is that the revisionist was not a landless person at the time of the present allotment, whereas there were a large number of landless persons in the village. The proceedings for cancellation of the lease were, in no way time barred. In fact they started within four months of the grant of the lease by the Land Management Committee. There is no error in the procedure adopted by the learned Collector and his order is in accordance with the law. 7. The revision has no force. Agreeing with the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner, I hereby dismiss the revision.