JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a revision against the order of the Additional Commissioner I Varanasi dated 30-11-1983 through which the revision filed against the order of the Additional Collector, Jaunpur dated 18-7-1980 was dismissed. 2. These proceedings were initiated before the Collector under Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act on the application on opposite party and others. The Collector called for a report from the S.D.O. who sent it to the Tahsildar and the Naib Tahsildar after recording the evidence of both the parties submitted his report recommending the cancellation of the patta. The learned Addl. Collector after hearing the arguments cancelled the patta on the ground that the land was of public utility. A revision against that order was also dismissed, hence this revision. 3. The learned counsel for the opposite party is absent. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist. Perused the record and the impugned orders. 4. It was argued on behalf of the revisionist that no notice was issued to the L.M.C. and that the trial court has illegally acted by placing reliance on the evidence recorded by the Naib Tahsildar and did not take pains to record evidence by itself. It was, therefore, submitted that the trial court could not act upon the evidence recorded by Naib Tahsildar because the latter was not a court and the evidence recorded by him could not be read as evidence in this case. 5. In my opinion this argument is not without force. The learned Additional Collector should have himself taken the evidence of both the parties and should have examined the witnesses himself. The L.M.C. was also not impleaded as a party which was necessary to have been done. In such circumstances the order of the learned Addl. Collector suffers from material illegality which vitiates the trial. The learned Additional Commissioner also failed to examine the case on the aforesaid aspect. In such circumstances the revision is allowed and the order of the Additional Collector dated 18-7-1980 as well as the Additional Commissioner dated 30-11-1983 are set aside and the case remanded back to the Additional Collector to decide it afresh according to law and after recording evidence of both the parties by him.