JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is a revision against order dated November 6, 1978 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, dismissing revision No. 87 of 1977-78/Lalitpur confirming order dated August 23, 1973 passed by Collector Lalitpur cancelling the Patta of the applicant or April 11, 1958 of plot No. 267/2 Min 3 acres on the ground that the father of the applicant had 23 acres of land and that no preferential list was prepared and no plot number was mentioned in the resolution of the agenda notice circulated for it and that the brother of the applicant was member of the L.M.C. and no previous permission of the Collector was sought for granting the Patta. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 3. I agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that brother of the applicant being member of the L.M.C. was not barred for the grant of the Patta as held in 1983 U.P.L.B.E.C. page 149. 4. The father of the applicant admittedly had 23 acres of land and the applicant was included in the family of his father because the explanation to Section 154 of Act I of 1951 was amended on November 7, 1958 when the present definition not including major son in the family of the father was incorporated prior to it major son was included in the family of the father. 5. At the time of the grant of the Patta by Amending Act XVIII of 1956 came into force on 28th November, 1956 the following explanation I and II were substituted by deleting explanation to Section 154 and were inforce. "Explanation I - For the purposes of this section a family shall include in case it is a joint family the transferee himself, his father and his mother, his male lineal descendants and his wife or her husband, as the case may be. "Explanation II - For the purposes of this section, the transferee shall unless proved to the contrary, be presumed to be joint with the members of his family mentioned in Explanation I." 6. The above explanations were deleted by Amending Act 38 of 1958 and the following explanation was added and that Act came in force on November 7, 1958. "Explanation II - For the purposes of this section, the transferee shall unless proved to the contrary, be presumed to be joint with the members of his family mentioned in Explanation I." 6. The above explanations were deleted by Amending Act 38 of 1958 and the following explanation was added and that Act came in force on November 7, 1958. "Explanation - For the purposes of this section a family shall include the transferee, himself, his wife or husband as the case may be and his minor children." 7. It would be clear that in the present case the Patta was granted on April 11, 1958 when Explanation I, II quoted above were in force, therefore, the applicant was included in the definition of the family in the joint family of his father and the presumption was against him which he has not rebutted and thus he was not a landless labourer because his father had 23 acres of land at the time of the grant of the Patta and he was included in the family of his father, therefore, the Patta was illegally granted to him and was liable to be cancelled. 8. The principle of equitable estoppel applied to admission of student to educational institution for not cancelling students admission on basis of disqualification after letting the student study in the course for a long time as held in Indra Prakash v. Dy. Commissioner Delhi and others A.I.R. 1979 Delhi 87 cannot be applied to the cases of cancellation of Patta where the limitation for cancellation of Pattas has been enhanced by Amending Act of 1975 and subsequent Amending Act because in applying that equitable principles of estoppel will nullify these enactments. Therefore, the argument that applicant had been paying rent since April 11, 1958 to the L.M.C. agency of the Government, therefore, this estoppel should be applied is not accepted because this equitable estoppel is applied in the cases of cancellation of Patta then no Patta can be cancelled which will be against policy of the Government and intention of the legislature. 9. Rules 173 to 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules were also not complied with. 9. Rules 173 to 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules were also not complied with. In the meeting for April 11, 1955 no Pattas were granted and no plot numbers were mentioned nor they were notified in the publication by beat of drum and no preferential list was prepared and the meeting was held after agenda for February 5, 1958 and the plots numbers were not mentioned even in the resolution passed and it was found that the words 'Bhumi Pattaper Uthaney' was added afterwards in the agenda, therefore, the Patta of the applicant and will be against the policy of Legislature, was rightly confirmed by the learned Additional Commissioner and the finding of fact arrived at by both the courts below in this respect are not liable to be interfered with in this revision, hence this revision application has got no force. It is liable to be dismissed with costs. 10. In view of the above, this revision application is hereby dismissed with costs and the order passed by both the courts below are hereby confirmed. 11. Let the trial court's file be sent to it atonce for necessary action.