JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This revision has been filed against the order dated 23-8-84 passed by Sri Sabha Raj Singh, Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in Revision No. 74/171/130/369/56 of 1983-84. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on the report of Tahsil a show cause notice was issued to the allottee Rati Ram on the grounds that his father had 9.23 acres of land prior to the grant of patta, that he was not a landless agricultural labourer, and that patta was granted to him in an irregular manner. In response to this notice, the allottee filed an objection stating therein that his family was separate from his father, that he had no land other than that given to him under the lease. After taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them the learned Collector, Lalitpur, cancelled the lease. A revision was filed against that order of the learned Collector dated 27-12-1979 before the Additional Commissioner who dismissed the revision. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the lessee-applicant was residing separately from his father and he was a landless agricultural labourer, and that the opposite party had failed to establish that there was any land recorded in the name of the father. The learned counsel also submits that the Land Management Committee had not been made a party to the proceedings. The learned District Government Counsel (Revenue) submits in reply that the father of the lease-holder had land prior to the grant of patta, that he was the only son of his father and as such cannot be treated to be a landless person, that there was no evidence on record to establish that he was a landless 'agricultural labourer'. The learned D.G.C. (R) also submits that a show cause notice had been sent to the Land Management Committee and the L.M.C. was thus to be treated to have made a party to the proceedings, and that notice was served on the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist has drawn my attention to the Explanation-1 to Section 198 according to which an adult son is not to be treated as a member of the family of his father. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist has drawn my attention to the Explanation-1 to Section 198 according to which an adult son is not to be treated as a member of the family of his father. That Explanation attached to Section 198 reads as under :- "Explanation,-For the purposes of this sub-section- (1) "landless" refers to a person who or whose spouse or minor children hold no land as bhumidhar or asami, and also held no land as such within two years immediately preceding the date of allotment." 6. It appears that this provision has escaped the notice of the learned Collector. But even if it is presumed that the applicant had no land, then he will be a 'landless' person, and the applicant-revisionist has to further establish that he was also an 'agricultural labourer', and it is then only that he could claim that he was a person entitled for the grant of a lease by the Land Management Committee. In the instant case, I do not find any evidence at all that might establish the fact that the revisionist was an agricultural labourer. The word 'agricultural labourer' has been defined in Explanation (2) to Section 198, which reads as under :- "(2) "agricultural labourer" means a person whose main source of livelihood is agricultural labour." In the instant proceedings the learned Collector has failed to appreciate evidence on this point whether the allottee was an agricultural labourer, though he says that he was not an agricultural labourer. This finding is based only on evidence of Lekhpal. But there is no evidence on record to establish that the main source of livelihood of the applicant revisionist was agricultural labour. The learned counsel for the revisionist points out to the statement of the revisionist: " eSa [ksrh djrk gwWaA esgur etnwjh djrk FkkA" But this statement does not say that he was an agricultural labourer and that his main source of livelihood was agricultural labour. 7. The learned counsel for the revisionist says that the Land Management Committee was not made a party. I find that this contention of the learned counsel finds support from the record. There should be a specific order by the trial court that the Land Management Committee was being made a party to the proceedings. 7. The learned counsel for the revisionist says that the Land Management Committee was not made a party. I find that this contention of the learned counsel finds support from the record. There should be a specific order by the trial court that the Land Management Committee was being made a party to the proceedings. The learned D.G.C. (R) submits that since L.M.C. has been given a notice, hence, it should be presumed that it was made a party. He has drawn my attention to the provisions contained in sub-rule (2) of Rule 178-A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules. The said sub-rule reads as under:- "178-A (2). Where the Collector makes an enquiry under sub-section of Section 198, the Land Management Committee and the allottee of land shall be made parties and given an opportunity of being heard before final orders are passed." The learned D.G.C. (R) submits that once an opportunity was afforded to the Land Management Committee, no order regarding making the L.M.C. a party was necessary to be passed by the trial court. I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned D.G.C. (R) in this respect. From the plain reading of sub-rule (2) of Rule 178-A, it is evident that the Land Management Committee and the allottee of land shall have to be made parties. The words used in the sub-rule(2), "the Land Management Committee and the allottee of land shall be made parties", make it abundantly clear that there should be a clear order by the trial court in this respect while issuing the show-cause notices, that the Land Management Committee and the allottee are being made parties and thereafter the notices should go to the parties concerned. 8. So far as the question of affording opportunity is concerned, that has been provided in sub-rule (2) by the words "and given an opportunity of being heard before final orders are passed". On this score, I find that merely affording an opportunity of being heard will not make good the deficiency of the trial court in not making the Land Management Committee a party to the proceedings by a specific order. In view of these observations, this Court has no option but to remand the matter to the trial court. 9. On this score, I find that merely affording an opportunity of being heard will not make good the deficiency of the trial court in not making the Land Management Committee a party to the proceedings by a specific order. In view of these observations, this Court has no option but to remand the matter to the trial court. 9. Consequently, the revision is allowed, the order passed by the learned Collector dated 27-12-79 is set aside, and the trial court is directed to make the L.M.C. a party to proceedings and thereafter it should proceed in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-rule (2) of Rule 178-A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R Rules, and decide the matter in accordance with law. Keeping in view the observations made above.