JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This recommendation has been made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut vide his order dated June 8, 1981 for modifying the order of the trial court and for ordering cancellation of the lease granted in favour of Khajan Singh and Ram Prasad. 2. It appears that proceedings under Section 198(4) of Z.A. and L.R. Act were initiated in respect of plot No. 348/2-7-0 situate in village Anchana, Pargana Agaut, district Bulandshahar on the complaint of Akbar Shah and others against Khajan Singh and others that there are hundred graves on the land in dispute and the land has wrongly been allotted to allottees. The Naib Tahsildar has reported on May 17, 1976 that the plot No. 348 was not a graveyard, but was recorded as Banjar. The learned Additional Commissioner is of the view that the land is dispute is not a graveyard but the opposite party, Khajan singh, is the member of L.M.C. and his brother Ram Prasad was also allotted land without prior permission of Collector. 3. Objection was filed on behalf of the revisionist, Akhbar Shah and others alleging that from the settlement may, copy of the field book and Akar Parta-2 which are documents of spot inquiry coupled with other evidence, it is fully proved that the plot in dispute is an old graveyard. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has drawn my attention to the order of the trial court in which the plot No. 348 was mentioned as plot No. 448. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 5. I find that an application was moved before the learned Additional Collector, Bulanshahar, on February 21, 1976 alleging therein that the plot No. 348/2-7-0 was being used as graveyard by the Muslims. It is a fact that in C.H. Form 2-A plot No. 462 was recorded as graveyard. After consolidation operations the land was recorded as Banjar and was not set apart for public purposes under the U.P.C.H. At of 1953, and as such it cannot fall under the category of Section 132(6) of Z.A. and L.R. Act. As such it cannot be said that this land could not be allotted for agricultural purposes. After consolidation operations the land was recorded as Banjar and was not set apart for public purposes under the U.P.C.H. At of 1953, and as such it cannot fall under the category of Section 132(6) of Z.A. and L.R. Act. As such it cannot be said that this land could not be allotted for agricultural purposes. the learned counsel says that in the order passed by the trial court it is been stated that the application of the allotment with respect to plot No. 448 has been dismissed and as such his prayer in revision should be allowed. I find that there is a mistake in the order passed by the trial court and as such on this ground, I am not inclined to accept the reference made by the learned Additional COmmissioner. So far as the allotment made in favour of Khajan Singh and Ram, Prasad is concerned no permission of the Collector was obtained and as such that allotment in their favour is hereby cancelled. 6. In view of the above, revision is partly allowed, the allotment made in favour of Khajan Singh and Ram Prasad is sent back to the trial court for passing order in respect of plot No. 348 after hearing the parties. No Fresh evidence shall be taken.