JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - In this petition the operation of the order was dictated on 12-7-84 and the petition was allowed that day and it was remanded to the Board of Revenue for decision afresh. The reasons were to follow later on. These reasons are given, as under. 2. The present petition is directed against order of the Board of Revenue dated 24th February 1978 in proceeding under Rule 115-C of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules. The facts of the case are that in respect of plot nos. 80 and 89, lease was granted on 5th October 1968 in favour of respondents nos. 8 to 17. An application was moved by the petitioners that the lease was illegally executed and the allottee's were the near relations of the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha Halu Harrajpur, Pargana Bharthana, District Etah. It was further alleged that no notice of the meeting was given nor any information by beat of drums was given nor any procedure was followed in granting lease. Hence it was prayed that the allotment of the lease may be cancelled. 3. On the aforesaid application of the petitioners, the Tahsildar Bharthana was directed to make enquiry and submit his report. On the receipt of the said report the proceedings of cancellation were started and notices were issued to the respondents no. 4 to 7 who contested the case and alleged that in granting lease the procedure has been followed and the order of allotment of lease was perfectly correct and legal. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer Bharthana District Etah by his order dated 3rd October 1970 cancelled the lease. Against that order a revision was filed by respondents no. 4 to 17 and the same was recommended to Board of Revenue for being dismissed. The Board of Revenue ultimately by impugned order dated 24th February 1976 allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer Bharthana dated 3rd October 1970 and directed that action may be taken under Rule 115-C of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules. It is against this order the present petition has been filed and a prayer has been made that by issuing writ of certiorari the order dated 24th February 1976 may be quashed. 5. I have heard Sri R. Pandey, learned counsel, for petitioner and Sri B. Dixit, learned counsel for respondents no. 4 to 17. It is against this order the present petition has been filed and a prayer has been made that by issuing writ of certiorari the order dated 24th February 1976 may be quashed. 5. I have heard Sri R. Pandey, learned counsel, for petitioner and Sri B. Dixit, learned counsel for respondents no. 4 to 17. Sri R. Pandey has argued that under para 5 of the order of Board of Revenue (annexure 3) it has been stated that the constructions have been raised by the lessees before 24-6-71 as contemplated by Ruled 115-T of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules. But the requirement is that those persons (lessees) should have been the persons as contemplated under Section 122-C (3) of UPZA and LR Act 1959. No finding has been recorded by Board of Revenue whether lessees, were persons enumerated under Section 122-C (3) which is quoted as below - (i) an agricultural labourer or village artisan residing in the village and belonging to a Scheduled caste or Scheduled Tribe. (ii) any other agricultural labourer or village artisan residing in the villages. (iii) any other person residing in the village and belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. 6. Sri B. Dixit, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 to 17 on the other hand argued that the order of Board of Revenue was perfectly correct and there is no error on the face of record and there is no error on the face of record and the para 6 of the Board of Revenue does contemplate by implication that the allottee's were persons belonging to the category specified under Section 122-C (3) of the Act. Sri Dixit has advanced other arguments to justify the order of the Board of Revenue. 7. Having heard learned counsel for parties it appears that the Judgment of the Board of Revenue is not correct inasmuch as no where in the finding it has been stated as to whether allottee's were the persons enumerated under Section 122-C (3). The requirement of the law is very clear and Rule 115-T does not admit any exception. By implication it cannot be assumed that the lessees were the persons enumerated under Section 122-C (3). There should be a positive finding to that effect so as to bring Rule 115-T into operation. The requirement of the law is very clear and Rule 115-T does not admit any exception. By implication it cannot be assumed that the lessees were the persons enumerated under Section 122-C (3). There should be a positive finding to that effect so as to bring Rule 115-T into operation. It is accordingly clear that the Board of Revenue has applied the provisions of Rule 115-T without considering it in all its detail. The error is apparent on the face of record and the order of the Board of Revenue dated 24th February 1976 cannot be sustained. 8. I accordingly allow the writ petition and quash the judgment and order dated 24th February 1975 passed by Board of Revenue and direct the Board of Revenue to admit the case to its original number and decide it afresh in the light of the observations made above. In the circumstance of the case however I think that the parties should bear their own costs.