JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This recommendation has been made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Arga Division vide his order dated 24-9-84 for setting aside the trial court's order dated 21-10-83 and cancelling the lease granted in favour of the opposite-parties. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Nathan moved an application for cancellation of lease for abadi sites under Rule 115-P of U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Rules in the court of Collector on 23-12-1981. It was alleged that the lease was granted in an irregular manner, that on 9-12-67 a lease had already been executed in favour of Jita and others in respect of the same land for which the impugned lease had been granted, that he had moved an application under Section 95 (g) of Panchayat Raj Act against the Pradhan, and that the proclamation was made and no agenda was circulated. A notice was issued to the lease holders on 5-1-82 by the Additional Collector. On 8-4-82 objections were filed by Radha Charan and others and also the Pradhan, alleging that the leases were granted in a regular way, and that a proceeding for cancellation of lease was initiated earlier and the second proceeding was barred by principle of res judicata. On 13-5-82 Nathan moved an application alleging that no proceedings were taken earlier in respect of this land and that he was not a party to any such proceedings. The application of Nathan for cancellation of lease was rejected on 21-10-83. A revision was preferred against that order of the trial court dated 21-10-83 before the Additional Commissioner, who has made the recommendation as aforesaid. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner is of the view that there was no evidence on file to prove that proclamation was made seven days prior to grant of the lease and that there was no mention of the exact location of the site. He also held that there was no evidence to prove that the committee was given three day's notice. 5. An objection has been filed in which it has been alleged that the learned Additional Commissioner did not see the record of allotment of 15-8-77 and 16-10-77, and that Nathan himself was present on the date of the meeting. 6. He also held that there was no evidence to prove that the committee was given three day's notice. 5. An objection has been filed in which it has been alleged that the learned Additional Commissioner did not see the record of allotment of 15-8-77 and 16-10-77, and that Nathan himself was present on the date of the meeting. 6. The learned counsel for the revisionists submits that Land Management Committee was not a party to the proceedings. But I find that L. M. C. was a party to the proceedings and notices were issued to the L. M. C. There is nothing on record to prove that prior approval of the Assistant Collector Incharge of the Sub-Division was obtained for the allotments as provided in proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 115-N, U.P. Z. & L. R. Rules. All allotments for abadi sites are regulated by the provisions contained in Rule 115-N, which reads as under :- "115-N. (1) Whenever the Management Committee proceeds to allot housing sites under Rule 115-L or 115-M, it shall announce by beat of drum in the village the exact location of the sites to be allotted, the time, the date and venue of allotment. (2) All allotments shall be made by the Land Management Committee in a meeting held for the purpose on the date announced under sub-rule (1). Where more than one person belonging to the same order of preference express their desire to be allotted a particular site, the said Committee draw lots to determine the person to whom the site should be allotted. Provided that the prior approval of the Assistant Collector-in-charge of the Sub-Division shall be obtained for every allotment under rule 115-L or 115-M." This rule does not provide the number of days prior to which the L. M. C.'s meeting is to be held and announcement by beat of drum is to be made in the village. Under Rule 110 of the U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Rules, the procedure for holding meetings of the Land Management Committee has been given according to which the notice for the meeting is to be given at least three days before the date of the meeting. Under Rule 110 of the U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Rules, the procedure for holding meetings of the Land Management Committee has been given according to which the notice for the meeting is to be given at least three days before the date of the meeting. The procedure contained in Rule 173 is not applicable to the allotments made under Rules 115-L and 115-M. So, it is clear that notice for the date of the meeting shall be given to all members of the Land Management Committee at least, three days before the meeting and at lease three days before the meeting announcement should also be made in which the exact location of the site to be allotted, the time, the date and venue of allotment should also be announced. Consequently, there is no force in the objections raised on behalf of the opposite parties. 7. In view of the above, the reference is liable to be accepted. Accordingly, the revision is allowed, the order dated 21-10-83 of the trial court is set aside, and the leases grantee favour of the opposite parties are cancelled.