JUDGMENT Parmatma Singh, Member- This revision has been filled against the judgment and order dated January 2, 1984 passed by Sri S. Dass, Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi in Revision no. 155 of 1982-83. 2. Suo moto proceedings under section 198 (4) of U.P. Act I of 1951 were initiated against Bal Chand on the ground that his father had 21. 17 acres of land and he was allotted plot no. 3, area 4. 68 acres, and that he was residing along with his father, that Rules 173 to 176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules were not complied with, and that father of the lease-holder was a member of the Land Management Committee. Show cause notices were issued to the revisionist and the Land Management Committee. The revisionist objected to the grounds mentioned in the show-cause notice. The trial court held that the lease-holder was not a landless agricultural labourer as his father had 21.17 acres of land, and that lease was executed in his favour under the influence of his father who was a member of the Land Management Committee. The learned Commissioner held that the father of the lessee was a member of the Land Management Committee and, therefore, permission was required and the lease had rightly been cancelled, and that the lessee did not come under the category of landless agricultural labourer. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the land held by the father of the lease-holder could not be taken into account while considering the legality of the grant of lease to the revisionist, that there was no finding that the father of the revisionist had acquired any interest in the lease, and that the lease of the revisionist could not be held to be invalid under provisions of Section 28-C of the Panchayat Raj Act. He cited 1983 A. W. C. 131, and on that basis argued that there was no evidence to prove that any benefit had come to the father of the revisionist through the grant of lease in his favour. He cited 1983 A. W. C. 131, and on that basis argued that there was no evidence to prove that any benefit had come to the father of the revisionist through the grant of lease in his favour. The relevant sub-section (1) of Section 28-C reads as under : "No member or office bearer of a Gaon Panchayat or Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti shall, otherwise than with the permission in writing of the Collector, knowingly acquire or attempt to acquire or stipulate for or agree to receive or continue to have himself or through a partner or otherwise any share or interest in any licence, lease, sale, exchange, contract or employment with, by, or on behalf of the Samiti concerned." 5. Regarding the land held by the father of the revisionist, he placed reliance on 1984 A.W.C. 687. He pointed out to the Explanation to subsection (1) of Section 198 of Act I of 1951, which reads as under: "For the purposes of this sub-section - (i) 'landless' means a person or persons who or whose spouse or minor or children hold no land as bhumidhar, sirdar 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 whoso main source of livelihood is agricultural labour or assistance in participation with any person in the actual performance of agricultural operation on any land in consideration of a right to share in the produce grown on such land." 6. The learned D.G.C. (R) submits that the lease was granted for the benefit of the father of the revisionist and that the revisionist was living with his father and, hence, the land held by father will be treated to be jointly held by the revisionist. 7. From Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 198, it is evident that the land held by the spouse or minor children of a person is to be considered while deciding whether that particular person is landless or not in the instant case, there is no evidence on file to prove that the revisionist was minor when the lease was granted to him and, hence, by no stretch of imagination it can be inferred that the land held by the father belonged to the revisionist. The question of revisionist being a landless agricultural labourer should be decided in the light of this Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 198. There is no doubt that the provisions of Section 28 C Panchayat Raj Act are attracted to the grant of patta in favour of the present revisionist, but from the provisions of Section 28-C it is evident that it has to be proved whether the father of the revisionist acquired any interest or share in the lease granted to the revisionist. This aspect of the matter has escaped the notice of the revisional court. In view of this, it has to be decided whether the father of the revisionist acquired any benefit from the grant of lease or not. This has to be examined by the revisional court. The order of the learned Commissioner dated January 2, 1984 is, therefore, not sustainable in the eye of law. 8. Consequently, the order dated 2-1-84 is set aside and the learned Commissioner is directed to decide revision, keeping in view of the observation made above.