JUDGMENT K. P. Singh, J. 1. THIS writ petition has been directed against the judgment of late Sri H. N. Agarwal, I. A. S., Member Board of Revenue dated 17-8-1977. It arises out of proceedings under section 198 (4) of the UP ZA and LR Act. 2. THE petitioners had approached the trial court with the allegations that the lease in their favour was wrongly set aside on 31-8-71 in a summary proceeding under section 198 (2) of the UP ZA and LR Act. Due to cancellation of the sale deed through the order dated 31-8-71 there is cloud on the title of the lessees hence the suit. The claim of the petitioners was contested with the allegations that there was no proper resolution for allotment of land nor proclamation and Munadi etc. were done in accordance with the Rules, hence the lease in favour of the petitioners was rightly cancelled. It was also alleged that the petitioners' father had sufficient land, hence the petitioners could not be termed as landless agricultural labourers. Therefore, the lease in their favour was rightly cancelled and the claim of the petitioners was rightly negatived. 3. THE trial court accepted the contention of the petitioner whereas the first appellate court negatived the claim of the petitioners and the same has been confirmed in revision petition. THE first appellate court justified the cancellation of the lease in favour of the petitioners by the authority concerned in a summary proceeding under section 198 (2) of the UP ZA and LR Act on the ground that the leases were granted to the petitioners without following the mandatory provisions of Rules 173 and 174 of the UP ZA and LR Act as well as on the ground that the petitioner's father had sufficient land. Meaning thereby that the petitioners could not be termed as landless labourers, but in revision the learned Member has upheld the judgment of the first appellate court only on the ground that the petitioners' father has sufficient land, hence the petitioners could not be held as landless agricultural labourers. THE relevant extract from the impugned judgment reads as below vide para 5 :- "......... THE relevant extract from the impugned judgment reads as below vide para 5 :- "......... It is further on record that neither a list of persons desirous of taking land on lease was prepared at the time of the grant of the lease nor the plots numbers to be let out were announced in the proclamation. While these irregularities may be ignored here as they have been not taken into account by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer. It is fully established that the allotment of land to the revisionists is in complete violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 198 (2) UP ZA and LR Act. It is not open to the Land Management Committee to allot land to persons whose fathers already have 26 acres of land when a large number of landless agricultural labourers exist in the village. " 4. AGAINST the judgment of the revisional court the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that the revisional court has failed to notice Explanation I added to section 198 of the UP ZA and LR Act relevant for the purposes of the present case. He has emphasised that the law prevailing in the year 1970 would govern the facts and circumstances of the present case as the lease was cancelled in the year 1971. None appears on behalf of the opposite parties. 5. EXPLANATION I to section 198 of the UP ZA and LR Act in the year 1970 reads as below :- " For the purposes of this sub-section- (i) 'landless' means a person or persons who or whose spouse or minor children hold no land as bhumidhar, sirdari or asami ; and except in clause (c) also held no land as such within two years immediately preceding the date of allotment ; and (ii) " agricultural labourer" means a person whose main source of livelihood or agricultural labourer or assistance in participation with any person in the actual performance of agricultural operations on any land in consideration of a right to share in the produce grown on such land. " 6. " 6. SINCE the revisional court in its order dated 17-8-1977 has upheld the cancellation of lease in favour of the petitioner only on the ground that the father of the petitioners had sufficient land, I think that the revisional court has failed to examine the Explanation I to section 198 of the UP ZA and LR Act. The bare perusal of Explanation (I) would indicate that even if the father had sufficient land, the petitioners could be termed as landless and this aspect of the matter has escaped the notice of the revisional court. The only limitation prescribed for a person being 'landless' is that he or she or their spouse and their minor children should not hold land as bhumidhar, sirdari or asami. Father of a person has not been included in the definition, hence the revisional court has patently erred in upholding the judgment of the first appellate court without addressing itself to the Explanation. As revisional court has based its judgment only on the ground that the petitioners' father had sufficient land, I have no option but to quash the impugned judgment and ask the revisional court to re-examine the claim of the petitioners in the light of the relevant law. Had the revisional court confirmed the judgment of the first appellate court also on the ground that mandatory Rules 173 and 174 of the UP ZA and LU Act were not complied with, the result might have been different, but the revisional court has confined its judgment only on one ground to the effect that the petitioner's father had sufficient land, I think that the ends of justice demand that the revisional court should be asked to decide the claim of the petitioners strictly in accordance with law. 7. IN the result, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the revisional court dated 17-8-1977 is hereby quashed and the revisional court is directed to re-examine the claims of the petitioners in the light of the relevant law. As none has appeared on behalf of the contesting opposite parties, there would be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.