JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member. - In this reference dated November 19, 1983, the learned Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad has recommended that the order of learned trail court dated May 15, 1979 be set aside and proceedings under Rule 115-P of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules may be dropped. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that no lease had been executed yet and so the learned Additional Commissioner had rightly recommended that the proceedings under Rule 115-P could not be taken up and being not maintainable, these may be set aside. The learned counsel for the opposite party has argued that he had put in his objection dated November 7, 1980 against the approval of the resolution of the L.M.C. dated November 4, 1983 and had also applied for cancellation of the allotment the the matter of jurisdiction was taken up before the learned Additional Collector also and vide his order dated May 21, 1978 he did consider and rule out his preliminary order dated June 21, 1975 he did consider and rule out this preliminary objection that the allottee in his application dated February 11, 1975 had admitted obtaining the land by resolution of the L.M.C. and so it amounted to allotment and not mere resolution, that the premium for his allotment had also been paid and so for all purposes it was allotment and could be cancelled under rule 115-P. The further argued that the learned Additional Collector had decided the case on merits while the learned the merits while the learned Additional Commissioner had not considered the merit at all. The learned counsel for the applicant insisted on the execution of the lease as a necessary pre-condition for cancellation of the allotment. 4. No doubt, a mere resolution may not amount to allotment, but in case the resolution is acted upon it must be deemed to be an allotment. The learned counsel for the applicant insisted on the execution of the lease as a necessary pre-condition for cancellation of the allotment. 4. No doubt, a mere resolution may not amount to allotment, but in case the resolution is acted upon it must be deemed to be an allotment. In this case the premium had also bee pain and the party had obtained possession in pursuance of the resolution/allotment by the L.M.C. The allotment of Abadi sites by the L.M.C. is made according to the procedure under Rule 115-M or 115-N and passing of resolution after following the prescribed procedure, depositing the premium if any and taking possession of Abadi in question are necessary ingredients which make up a practical allotment. Even though the lease is not executed, it must be deemed equal to an allotment by the L.M.C. which is capable of aggrieving any person and the proceedings for cancellation under Rule 115-P must also be held maintainable. Mere want of proper lease document cannot be sufficient ground for holing the proceedings not maintainable. 5. I am therefore, unable to accept the reference and the revision petition being without force is hereby rejected.