JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member. - This is a reference made by Additional Commissioner, I, Varanasi Division, Varanasi dated 7-4-1986 through which he has recommended that the order of the trial court so far as relates to the revisionist should be set aside and the patta should be maintained. 2. The facts of this case in brief are that the L.M. C. by its resolution executed leases in favour of-19 persons. Opposite party brought an application for cancellation of all the 19 leases on the ground that irregularity had been committed in the allotment of land and the Pattas deserved to be cancelled. The learned Additional Collector maintained the pattas of lessees 9 to 19 but cancelled the pattas in respect of the revisionist no. 1 to 8, hence a revision was filed by them. The Additional Commissioner found that the trial court had adopted illegal procedure by not taking evidence itself and by relying on the evidence recorded by the Tahsidar during the inquiry. He also held that even though some of the Pattedars were relation rather close relations of Pradhan or Up-pradhan but their pattas could not be cancelled because they could not be held to be members of the family of the Pradhan or Up-pradhan within the meaning of Section 154 (sic) the Z. A, Act. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. It was argued on behalf of the revisionist that the recommendation should be accepted because no evidence was recorded by the trial court and that the pattas are not hit by Section 28-C of the Panchayat Raj Act and that the pattedars were landless persons according to the law prevailing at that time. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the case be remanded back to the trial court for deciding it afresh after recording fresh evidence. 6. I understand that there is force in the argument of the opposite party. The main point for consideration in this case is whether any breach of rule in respect of the propriety was committed or not by the L. M. C. while allotting the land. In this aspect of the matter it was the duty of the trial court to have examined the fact as to in what category the pattedars were allotted land and whether the provisions of any rules were breached or not. In this aspect of the matter it was the duty of the trial court to have examined the fact as to in what category the pattedars were allotted land and whether the provisions of any rules were breached or not. It was also the duty of the trial court to have taken evidence by itself whether the pattedars were landless agricultural labourers or not. I could not rely on the evidence recorded by the Tahsildar. The mere fact that a person is landless does not mean that he may be labourer also. It is, therefore a question of fact whether a pattedar is landless as well as agricultural labourer and it can be decided only on the evidence before the trial court. In such circumstances instead of making a recommendation for the complete reversal of the trial courts order the remand of the case should have been recommended. In such circumstances I allow the revision but set aside the order of the trial court dated 17-4-198 5 and remand the case to it to try it afresh according to law and to afford full opportunity to both the parties to produce evidence.