JUDGMENT I.B. Singh Member. - This is a reference dated July 8, 1982 made by learned Commissioner. Jhansi Division, Jhansi, recommending to set aside order dated July 28, 1981 passed by the learned Additional collector, Lalitpur in a case under Section 198(4) of Act, I of 1951 rejecting adjournment application of the granting time to produce evidence and ordering to proceed exparte. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 3. It has been argued that the recommendation be accepted for setting aside the impugned order of the learned Additional Collector refusing adjournment sought on the ground that he applicant was keeping 'Roza' and was unable to produce evidence on that date. It was been further argued that question of general importance is involved as to whether it is the Gaon Sabha and State who are to lead evidence first for proving that the grounds for cancellation of the Patta and then the applicant is required to lead evidence in support of his case; to lead evidence first that the C.P.C. is applicable and it is the Gaon Sabha and State who are required to prove their case first then the opposite party is required to prove its case and not that the opposite party is required to lead evidence first. 4. It has been argued in reply that as far recommendation of the learned Commissioner for setting aside order refusing adjournment, may be accepted. But regarding argument on question of general importance, it has been argued that the provisions of Section 198 of Act 1 of 1981 lay down the procedure to be followed in the inquiry as held in 1977 R.D. page 408 (F.B.) and rule 178-A of the U.P.Z.A. an L.R. Rules requires opportunity of being heard to be given to the opposite party before passing final orders which includes production of evidence for showing cause against the notice, final orders can be passed as a consequence of non-production of evidence by the allottee. 5. It has been laid down in Similesh Kumar v. Gaon Sabha Uskar, Ghazipur and others, 1977 R.D. 408(F.B.,H.C.) as follows:- "The Act creates a self-contained Code Creating rights and indicating the manner of settlement of dispute. No other authority has jurisdiction to readjudicate matters covered thereby. 5. It has been laid down in Similesh Kumar v. Gaon Sabha Uskar, Ghazipur and others, 1977 R.D. 408(F.B.,H.C.) as follows:- "The Act creates a self-contained Code Creating rights and indicating the manner of settlement of dispute. No other authority has jurisdiction to readjudicate matters covered thereby. The consolidation authorities have to recognise and respect the acting of Land Management Committee or order of the Collector or Board Of Revenue, if any, not go behind them. 6. The said ruling does not lay down what procedure should be accepted by the Collector of the District in proceeding for cancellation of the Patta granted by the L.M.C. it only lays down that the consolidation authorities have got no jurisdiction to look into the validity of the patta granted by the L.M.C. as they have got no jurisdiction to cancel the Patta and they cannot go behind the action of the L.M.C. or order of the Collector or Board of Revenue, if any. 7. Rule 178-A and U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules runs as follows:- 178-A. "(1) Where the settlement of land made by the land Management Committee, as approved by the Assistant Collector-in-charge of the sub-division is challenged under sub-section (4) of Section 198 by any person aggrieved or where the Collector intends to take suo motu action, the Collector may pass suitable interim orders by way of stay of proceedings or otherwise. (2) Where the Collector makes an enquiry under sub-section (4) of Section 198, the Land Management Committee and the allottee of land should be made parties and given an opportunity of being heard before final orders are passed. 8. Sub-rule 2 of the said rule lays down that where the Collector makes enquiry under sub-section (4) of Section 198, the land Management Committee and the allottees of the land shall be made parties and given an opportunity of being heard before final orders are passed. If lays down unambiguously that Land Management Committee and the allottee of the land shall be given an opportunity of being heard before the final orders are passed which means that both shall be given opportunity of adducing evidence and hearing only then final order can be passed by the Collector making the enquiry. If lays down unambiguously that Land Management Committee and the allottee of the land shall be given an opportunity of being heard before the final orders are passed which means that both shall be given opportunity of adducing evidence and hearing only then final order can be passed by the Collector making the enquiry. It no where lays down that if the L.M.C. of the State do not lead evidence in support of the grounds for cancellation of the patta even then if the allottee of the land has not lead evidence the final order for cancellation of Patta can be passed. 9. C.P.C. is applicable to the proceedings under Act, I of 1951 and also to the proceedings under U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules unless prohibited specifically by the Act or by the provisions of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules. The proceedings under U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules are also under U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Section 341 of Act I of 1951 lays down as follows:- Section 341: " Application of certain Acts to the proceedings of this Act:-Unless otherwise expressly provided by or under this Act the provisions of the Indian Courts Fees Act, 1870, the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908, and the Limitation Act, 1963 including Section 5 thereof shall apply to the proceedings under this Act." 10. C.P.C. provides that normally the plaintiff shall lead evidence in support of his case then the defendant shall lead evidence in support of his decree per Order VIII of the C.P.C. Therefore, in recording evidence the trial court had to give date for production of evidence by the L.M.C. or the State then to give date for production of evidence by the opposite party or a date can be fixed for production of evidence by both and the L.M.C. or State shall lead evidence first then the opposite party shall lead evidence. 11. The observations of the learned Commissioner to the contrary to above are erroneous and do not lay down the correct proposition of law regarding leading of evidence in proceeding for cancellation of the pattas. 12. I agree with the recommendation of the learned Commissioner that adjournment ought to have been granted to the applicant for producing evidence may be subject to payment of costs, refusing adjournment in such cases may result too great injustice to the party, it is also to be kept in mind while passing order. 13. 12. I agree with the recommendation of the learned Commissioner that adjournment ought to have been granted to the applicant for producing evidence may be subject to payment of costs, refusing adjournment in such cases may result too great injustice to the party, it is also to be kept in mind while passing order. 13. In view of the above the revision application is allowed. The impugned order sis set aside. The case is remanded to and trial court for allowing the parties to adduce evidence in the manner addressed, then to decide the case according to law. 14. Let the trial court's file be sent to it atonce for necessary action.