JUDGMENT K. P. Singh, J. 1. This writ petition arises out of petitioner's suit under section 198 (4) read with section 229-B of the UP ZA and LR Act. The lease in favour of the petitioner was cancelled through the order dated 16-11-71 contained in Annexure 'A' attached with the writ petition. In the suit the petitioner had challenged the cancellation of lease in his favour and had prayed for declaration of his right in the disputed land. 2. The trial court through its order dated 19-9-1972 granted decree in favour of the petitioner. State of U. P. aggrieved by the order of the trial court preferred an appeal and the appeal was allowed by the Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi through his judgment dated 2-12-1974 as is evident from Annexure A-2 attached with the writ petition. Thereafter the petitioner preferred a revision petition which has been dismissed by the revisional court through its order dated 30-6-1977. Against the judgment of the revisional court the petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the lease in his favour was quite in accordance with law then prevailing and the appellate court and the revisional court have patently erred in maintaining the cancellation of lease which was granted in favour of the petitioner. 3. My attention was drawn to the provisions of section 198 of the UP ZA and LR Act which stood at relevant time as below :- " In admitting any person as sirdar or asami under section 195 or 197, the Gaon Sabha shall subject to the rules framed or order made by the court under section 178 observe the following order of preference- (a) a co-operative farm established under this Act, holding land within the jurisdiction of the Gaon Sabha, to enable it to possess a suitable area, (b) a bhumidhar to whom sub-section (2) of section 18 or section 137 applies and who is holding land less than six and a quarter acres in area in the circle, (c) a tenure-holder other than the bhumidhars to whom clause (b) applies holding land less than six and a quarter acres in area in the circle, (d) a landless labourer residing in the circle, and (e) any other person ; Provided......... Provided......... 4. Provided......... 4. The main grievence of the learned counsel for the petitioner before me is that the petitioner's case is covered by clause (e) of section 198 of the Act and the appellate court and the revisional court have patently erred in not recognising the claim of the petitioner. During the course of arguments I observed that CI. (e) of section 198 of the Act would be construed as if any other person living in the circle where the disputed land was situate. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the words of clause (e) of section 198 are so clear that the indication made by me would not be justified in the circumstances of the case. He has cited a large number of rulings such as Raja Bhanu Pratap Singh v. The Assistant Custodian E. P. Bahraich, AIR 1966 SC 245 , Union of India v. Sankal Chand Mimat Lal Sheth, AIR 1977 SC 2328 and Om Prakash Gupta v. Dig Vijendrapal Gupta, AIR 1982 SC 1230 and has emphasised that harmonious constructions should be done and no word should be added to clause (e) of section 198 of the UP ZA and LR Act because the words are very clear and the indication made by me that clause (e) would be construed as any person residing in the circle should not be laid down. In Ram Pal Singh v. Board of Revenue, U. P. Allahabad, 1981 RD 333 construing the provisions of section 198 (d) of the UP ZA and LR Act (amended provisions) I have already held that the landless agricultural labourer should be resident of the circle. 5. Even in Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. The Collector of Excise, Govt. of Tripura Agartala, AIR 1972 SC 1863 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have indicated in para 9 of their judgment as below ;- "......The ejusdem generis rule strives to reconcile the incompatibility between specific and general words. This doctrine applies when (i) the statute contains an enumeration of specific words; (ii) the subjects of the enumeration constitute a class or category (iii) that class or category is not exhausted by the enumeration; (iv) the general term follows the enumeration and (v) there is no indication of a different legislative intent. " 6. This doctrine applies when (i) the statute contains an enumeration of specific words; (ii) the subjects of the enumeration constitute a class or category (iii) that class or category is not exhausted by the enumeration; (iv) the general term follows the enumeration and (v) there is no indication of a different legislative intent. " 6. In view of the above observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court I think that the indication made by me during the course of arguments is fully justified in view of clauses (a) to (d) of section 198 of the UP ZA and LR Act at relevant time it can safely be inferred that clause (e) meant any other person of the circle where the disputed land is situate. However, the decision of the present writ petition would not depend upon the aforesaid construction of clause (e) indicated by me herebefore. In the impugned judgment the revisional court vide para 9 has observed as below :- "......To consider this argument, we have to see whether due proclamation of the plot numbers to be allotted with their areas was made and whether the list of persons in ZA Form 57-A was duly prepared. The trial court had, however, recorded the finding that whereas due proclamation was made, the list of persons was not prepared. Thus, both the courts below are unanimous in holding that list of persons desirous of taking land was not prepared. The certified extracts of the record of the Land Management Committee which have been filed and the statement of the Lekhpal, who is Secretary of the Land Management Committee proved beyond doubt that no list of person/persons desirous of taking land as prescribed under the UP ZA and LR Rules was prepared. Thus, not only have the rules been violated, no presumption can be made that no person or institute in higher category was desirous of taking land. Apart from this, the Lekhpal had clearly admitted in his cross-examination that even now there are four landless persons in the village. Had a list of persons desirous of taking land been prepared, it is quite reasonable to expect that these persons would have also desired to take land. Thus, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer had rightly cancelled the lease of the revisionist, and the learned Additional Commissioner has rightly upheld the same. Had a list of persons desirous of taking land been prepared, it is quite reasonable to expect that these persons would have also desired to take land. Thus, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer had rightly cancelled the lease of the revisionist, and the learned Additional Commissioner has rightly upheld the same. " Rule 173 of the UP ZA and LR Rules reads as below :- "Admission to land-Whenever the Land Management Committee intends to admit any person to land under section 195 or 197, it 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, the numbers of plots, their areas and the date on which admission thereto is to be made." Rule 174 provides as below ;- "On the said date, a meeting of the Committee shall be held to select persons for admission to land as sirdar or asami as the case may be. A list of all the persons who are present and who express their desire to be admitted to the land shall be prepared in ZA Form 57-A. The list shall be drawn up separately in respect of the land to be settled to a sirdar and to be settled to an asami. The names of the persons shall be arranged in the list in the order of preference laid down in section 198." The appellate court in its order dated 2-12-1974 has observed in the last paragraph as below :- " ...... He further stated that the proclamation was made by a peon who did not tell the plots number. Arjun Lekhpal stated that the plaintiff is not resident of the Gaon Sabha circle. The agenda was made eight days before the meeting and in agenda the place of meeting is not mentioned. In proceeding it is mentioned that the lease was granted to the persons shall deposit ten times of the rent. The plaintiff had produced no evidence to show that he ever deposited the ten times of rent. He also failed to prove that he is landless agricultural labourer. As such the lease was granted ignoring the mandatory provisions of law and was rightly cancelled." 7. The plaintiff had produced no evidence to show that he ever deposited the ten times of rent. He also failed to prove that he is landless agricultural labourer. As such the lease was granted ignoring the mandatory provisions of law and was rightly cancelled." 7. To my mind the compliance of Rules 173 and 174 of the UP ZA and LR Rules is mandatory and if a lease has been granted to the petitioner in contravention of the above mentioned Rules 173 and 174, it was rightly cancelled by the Assistant Sub-Divisional Officer through his order dated 16-11-1971 and the same has been rightly maintained by the appellate court and the revisional court. The petitioner has no legs to stand and cannot successfully challenge the impugned judgments. 8. In Sri Prasad Pant v. Deputy Commissioner, Nainital, 1975 RD 282 a learned single Judge of this Court has indicated as below :- ".........Section 198 says that the following order of preference shall be observed in allotting land. Clearly, if there is a person falling under clause (a), he has a preference over a person falling under subsequent clauses (b), (c) or (d). In between two persons, one of whom is qualified under clause (a) while the other comes under the residuary clause (d), the person falling under- clause (a) has a right of preference." In the present case proper proclamation contemplated by Rule 173 of UP ZA and LR Rules has not been done nor the list of landless agricultural labourers residing in the circle was prepared. Rather on the finding of the appellate court and the revisional court it appears that there were landless agricultural labourers residing in the circle. I think that the lease was granted to the petitioner in clear violation of the relevant rules and preference indicated in section 198 of the UP ZA and LR, Act. The petitioner cannot make legitimate grievance against the impugned judgments because he is resident of another village not in the circle there the disputed land is situate. 9. In the result the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There would be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.