JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a review petition filed by Sri Ram Das against the order dated 8-5-1985 of a single Member of this Court. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that a patta was executed in favour of Haribansh by the L. M. C. about the land in dispute. Sri Ramdas filed an application before the Collector, under Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Act alleging that Sri Haribansh was not eligible for getting the patta. The learned Additional Collector rejected the application on the ground that the Pattedar was a soldier and he was entitled to the execution of patta in his favour. Ram Das preferred a revision against that order but it was also dismissed, hence he filed another revision before this court and it was also dismissed by an order dated 8-5-1985. A review petition was moved before the same learned Member and he admitted the review petition. The learned Member has since retired, hence this petition has come up before us for disposal. 3. We have carefully heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the pattedar had obtained the patta merely on the ground that he was a soldier even though he was not a resident of the circle and that the trial court did not cancel the patta under the impression that pattas executed in favour of the soldiers have not to be cancelled which was an erroneous view. It was further argued that under Section 198 of the U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Act only such soldiers are entitled to pattas who have become wholly disabled by enemy action whereas in the instant case the pattedar is still in active service and, therefore, he could be granted patta only if he fulfilled the requirements of Section 198 of U.P.Z A. & L. R. Act. 5. Section 198 of the U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Act deals with the persons of the armed forces in clauses 1 (b) and 1 (f) which read as follows :- (a) ..... (b) a person residing in the circle, who has become wholly disabled by enemy action while in active service in the Armed Forces of the Union; (c) ..... (d) ..... (e) ..... (b) a person residing in the circle, who has become wholly disabled by enemy action while in active service in the Armed Forces of the Union; (c) ..... (d) ..... (e) ..... (f) a landless person residing in the circle who is retired, released or discharged from service other than service as an officer in the Armed Forces of the Union; In clause (b) it is provided that preference would be given to a person residing in the circle who has become wholly disabled by enemy action while in active service in the Armed Forces. Sub-section (f) relates to the retired, released or discharged persons from the armed forces. Thus if the pattedar in the present case was considered eligible to get the patta he was required to have fallen in any one of these two categories. However since he does not belong to the circle nor he has become wholly disabled nor he has retired, released or discharged from the service, hence the provision of these two clauses could not apply to him. No ether provision could be laid down before us by the learned counsel for the pattedar in support of his eligibility either by being a soldier or otherwise. Consequently since the pattedar is not a resident of the circle nor he satisfies the aforesaid provisions of clauses (b) and (f) hence he did not qualify the conditions and did not deserve to be given any patta. Both the courts below as well as the learned member did not weigh the evidence in the light of the aforesaid provisions of Section 198 of the Z. A. Act, hence their orders deserve to be quashed and the patta executed in favour of Sri Haribansh is liable to be cancelled. 6. Accordingly we find that the review petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly we allow it and set aside the order passed by the single Member of this court dated 8-5-1985 and as well as the orders passed by both the courts below and accordingly cancel the patta executed in favour of Sri Haribansh.