JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member, J. - This revision has been filed against the order dated 19-12-80 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, in appeal arising out of an order dated 11-6-80 passed by the Assistant Collector First Class, Etah in a suit under Section 176 of U.P. Act I of 1951. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a preliminary decree was prepared in the suit under Section 176 of the U.P. Act I of 1951 and lots were prepared by the Lekhpal. The parties were not satisfied with the lots prepared by the Lekhpal and the Court itself after hearing the objections prepared the Kuras. Against that order of the trial court an appeal was preferred before the learned Additional Commissioner who dismissed the appeal on 19-12-80. Against that order of the learned Additional Commissioner the instant second appeal has been filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionists and perused the record. None appeared for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court had no jurisdiction to frame its own kuras in case the parties were not satisfied with the kuras prepared by the Lekhpal, that the area proposed to be allotted is not compact one, that land revenue had not been given in the kuras prepared by the trial court that the lower appellate court acted illegally and with material irregularity in not recording any finding in respect of compliance of Rule 132 of the U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Rules, that the revisionists were in exclusive possession of plots Nos. 114 and 177 which were incorrectly given in the kuras and the valuation of the trees already existing on plot No. 55 had incorrectly been ignored, that the parties were not afforded an opportunity to substantiate their cases, and that it was against all cannons of law for the trial court to have prepared kuras itself. 5. The learned Additional Commissioner says that there was no dispute with regard to the shares of the parties, that the land has been allotted to the parties on the basis of valuation, and that there is no evidence that plots Nos. 114 and 177 were in possession of Ramvir Sharma. 6. 5. The learned Additional Commissioner says that there was no dispute with regard to the shares of the parties, that the land has been allotted to the parties on the basis of valuation, and that there is no evidence that plots Nos. 114 and 177 were in possession of Ramvir Sharma. 6. Section 182-B of U.P. Act I of 1951 provides that the division of a holding or the separation of the shares therein of a bhumidhar shall be made by the court in accordance with the principles that may be prescribed. Section 182-B reads as under : - "182-B. Subject to the provisions of Sections 178 to 182 the division of a holding or the separation of the shares therein of a bhumidhar shall be made by the Court in accordance with the principles that may be prescribed." 7. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 131 of the rules framed under U.P. Act I of 1951 prescribes the principles which are to be observed by the trial court. The observance of the provisions of this sub-rule is mandatory, and the trial court should record its findings on these points., The principles laid down in Rule 132 are also to be observed by the trial court. The provisions of Rule 132 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules are also mandatory and read as under :- "132. The Court shall prepare and place on record a map showing in different colours the plots given to each party, and if any field has been sub-divided, he shall demarcate the portions at the expense of the parties." 8. In the instant case, I find that the parties were not satisfied with the lots prepared by the Lekhpal. The trial court prepared the lots itself. The proper course open to the trial court was to have invited objections against the lots which the trial court prepared itself. The learned counsel, for the revisionists submits that the trial court had no right to prepare the lots by itself. I am not inclined to agree with this contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist. The trial court had all the rights and it could prepare the lots as it had all the powers with regard to partition of the holding of a bhumidhar. It appears that the trial court directly allotted different kuras to different persons. I am not inclined to agree with this contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist. The trial court had all the rights and it could prepare the lots as it had all the powers with regard to partition of the holding of a bhumidhar. It appears that the trial court directly allotted different kuras to different persons. It should have invited objections against the lots drawn by it and thereafter should have partitioned the holding. The learned Additional Commissioner did not consider the principles and procedure that were to be observed by the trial court in the partition of a holding as enumerated in Rules 131 and 132 of the rules framed under the Act. 9. In view of the above observations, the orders passed by the courts below are not sustainable in law and are accordingly set aside. The trial court is directed to proceed with the matter after observing the principles laid down in Rules 131 and 132 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules.