JUDGMENT K. Kishore, Member - This is a reference by the learned Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad in revision application against the order dated 3-10-72 by the learned trial court, cancelling the lease dated 8-6-1967 in favour of Ram Prasad under Section 198 (2) of Act I of 1951. A recommendation has been made that the impugned order be set aside and the lease in question be held valid. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and have also perused the record. 3. The objection was not filed by the State or the Gaon Sabha but on hearing the parties, the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned DGC (R) has pointed out certain discrepancies in the procedure adopted by the Land Management Committee in granting the lease which were not properly appreciated by the learned Additional Commissioner while making the recommendation. What has been done by the learned Additional Commissioner is re appreciation of the evidence and reversing the finding of fact arrived at by the learned trial court which the counsels argued, is out side the scope of revision. The learned Additional Commissioner has actually considered only the documentary evidence, i.e. the agenda and proceedings as the note showing the contents of proclamation. It has been pointed out that instead of seven days notice for the meeting only three days notice was given, as is clear from the documents. The proclamation was done on 5-6-1967 and on the same day agenda notice was circulated to the members and the meeting was held on 8-6-3967. The learned Additional Commissioner has differed from the learned trial court on the point whether the requirements of Rule 173 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act were complied with. Since the plot numbers are given in the agenda notice and the note of proclamation the learned Additional Commissioner held that Rule 173 was complied with in full and the observation of the learned lower court was incorrect. The Rule actually requires that the Land Management Committee shall announce by beat of drum in the circle of the Gaon Sabha in which the land is situate at least seven days before the date of meeting for admission of land, numbers of plots, their area and the date of which the admission thereto is to be made. The Rule actually requires that the Land Management Committee shall announce by beat of drum in the circle of the Gaon Sabha in which the land is situate at least seven days before the date of meeting for admission of land, numbers of plots, their area and the date of which the admission thereto is to be made. Since there was only three days notice and the area was not given, even on the documentary evidence it is obvious that the substantial compliance of Rule 173 was not done. 4. I also agree that the learned Additional Commissioner has tried to appreciate the evidence and reached a different finding of fact rather than finding any error of jurisdiction. He left out of consideration the oral evidence produced by the parties which, as also reports and documents, the learned trial court had considered and reached his finding that the grant of lease was not done after following the required procedure and so the grant of lease had become invalid. The evidence clearly shows that the proclamation by beat of drum itself is doubtful. There is a controversy whether Heeru, Dhanak or Achchey carried out the proclamation and the only finding is by the learned trial court that the proclamation is not proved to have been done. 5. The contention of the counsel for the revisionist that no objection being filed by the Gaon Sabha the recommendation as to be accepted, is not acceptable. In fact, the whole revision along with the recommendation is for consideration before the Board and there is no bar to consider whether the recommendation based on the considerations by the learned Additional Commissioner is justified or not. In view of the above discussion, I am of the firm opinion that the learned trial court did not commit any error relating to exercise of jurisdiction as envisaged under Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 6. The reference is, accordingly, rejected and the revision application stands dismissed.