JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - These are connected references made by the Additional Commissioner, Rohilkhand Division Bareilly, to the effect that the revisions filed by Rahim, Sunderlal, Mahendra and Ram Bhajan against the order dated 15.2.1972, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tilhar, district Shahjahanpur, in proceedings under rule 115-N of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules may be dismissed. 2. I have heard the revisionist in person, and the District Government Counsel (Revenue) on behalf of the State. 3. The Land Management Committee of Babupur by resolution dated 12.5.1970 allotted 160 square yards of land to each of the revisionist. On a complaint, made against these allotments, an inquiry was made by the Naib Tahsildar, and thereafter the Sub-Divisional Officer took suo moto action under rule 115N of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules. By his order dated 15.2.1972, the Sub-Divisional Officer cancelled the allotments. This order has been challenged in revision. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer has cancelled the allotments on two grounds firstly that the allotments were farzi and secondly that the land was reserved for a public use. The revisionists have on the other hand taken the plea that the land which had been allotted to them was no more needed for public use as a pucca school had already been built in the village and no building for panchayat ghar was needed as there was no Nyaya Panchayat in the village. Further, there was enough. 5. The finding that the proceedings for allotment were farzi is perverse, and is not based on any evidence on record. There is on record the Agenda Register which shows that the agenda for the meeting of Land Management Committee to be held on 12.5.1970 at 12 noon to consider the allotment of the land to landless persons for purposes of abadi was issued on 6.5.1970 under the signature of the Pradhan, Sewa Ram, and that the agenda as duly served on all the members who have either put in their thumb impressions or signatures. There is not the slightest evidence to suggest that this agenda has been forged or that any of the signatures or thumb impressions were not genuine. I am unable to see how the courts below have recorded a finding that the agenda was not duly circulated. There is not the slightest evidence to suggest that this agenda has been forged or that any of the signatures or thumb impressions were not genuine. I am unable to see how the courts below have recorded a finding that the agenda was not duly circulated. The proceedings book of the Land Management Committee for the period 1.4.1970 to 31.3.1971, is also on the record, which includes the proceedings of the meeting held on 12.6.1970. The proceedings register bears the signatures or thumb impressions of- 1. Sewa Ram 2. Jev Lal 3. Har Dayal 4. Sardar 5. Mathura Prasad 6. Ram Bhajan 7. Lachhman 8. Siya Ram 9. Baldeo 10. Banwari 11. Jagdish 12. Bhagwan Das 13. Pyare Lal 14. Abhilakh 15. Sewa Ram Kahar In other words, practically every members of the Land Management Committee has signed the minutes or put his thumb impressions. I am unable to see how the court below has recorded the perverse finding that the meeting was attended by the Pradhan Sewa Ram, and two other members. If the Court below was under a wrong impression that the remaining persons who were present in the meeting, were not members of the Land Management Committee but outsiders with no locus standi, it was his duty to record a finding on the question who were the members of the Land Management Committee and were outsiders. The court below has, therefore, failed to record any such finding and has merely made observations on conjectures. The Land Management Committee is a statutory body formed in accordance with definite rules. Therefore, the courts below should have obtained the authentic record from the Collector about the names of the members constituting the Land Management Committee. In the absence of such authentic information, the finding that persons present in the meeting of 12.5.1970 were not members the Land Management Committee cannot be sustained. 6. Another point which has been completely ignored is that the allotment of land as made to the revisionists on 12.5.1970 for the purpose of construction of their houses. The revisionists have taken the plea that not only they deposited the premium, but have also got their houses constructed over the allotted land. The learned S.D.O. has not recorded any finding on the question whether the allottees have constructed their houses over the land. The revisionists have taken the plea that not only they deposited the premium, but have also got their houses constructed over the allotted land. The learned S.D.O. has not recorded any finding on the question whether the allottees have constructed their houses over the land. It will be a travesty of justice if after the necessary formalities have been completed and the houses have been constructed, the allotments are cancelled now after a gap of 7 years. Again, the learned S.D.O has not considered the question at all whether the revisionists are landless persons and whether the land in question was really required for public utility other than construction of houses. There is the clear evidence of the Pradhan as well as of some other witnesses to the effect that the allottees are landless agricultural labourers and genuinely need land for constructing their houses. The Sub-Divisional Officer has accepted that there was already a Primary School in the village, but he himself is of the view that the land in question was required for construction of a Pranchayat Ghar. I cannot, however, accept the plea that the construction of a Panchayat Ghar is a matter of greater public utility than construction of houses for landless agricultural labourers without a roof over their heads. It is a question of giving priorities to our social values. The basic need of a human being are to my mind, to be given a higher priority than the secondary needs like the construction of a Panchayat Ghar or a community centre. 7. As a result of the foregoing discussion, I hereby allow the revision, set aside the impugned orders of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer and remand the case to him for decisions afresh in the light of the above observations. He shall obtain an authentic list of the members of the Land Management Committee from the Collector and also ascertain whether the revisionists are in fact landless agricultural labourers and whether they have actually constructed their houses on the land allotted to them before passing any further orders.