JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a reference made by Additional Commissioner I, Meerut Division, Meerut dated October 1, 1982 through which he has recommended that the revision be allowed and the order of the Additional Collector, Muzaffarnagar dated June 5, 1982 be set aside. 2. The fact of this case in brief are that the revisionist Sitaram filed an application before the Collector under Section 198(4) and Rule 115 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act with the request that the Patta is favour of the opposite party Jai Prakash be cancelled and it was irregular. 3. The case was contested by opposite party Jai Prakash. The learned Additional Commissioner found that the resolution for the allotment made in favour of the Opposite party was still under the consideration of the S.D.O. and the latter had not finally disposed of the matter, hence the application for cancellation of Patta was premature and rejected the same. On revision the learned Additional Commissioner came to the conclusion that since the opposite party had the taken possession of the land even without the approval of the S.D.O., hence the Patta should be cancelled. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the both the parties. Perused the record. 5. It has been argued of the revisionist that the resolution was passed without publication and agenda, hence the Patta deserves to be cancelled. Even though this argument might be forceful but in view of the finding of the learned Additional Collector that final approval has not be made by the S.D.O. I also think that these proceedings are premature. The revisionist should draw the attention of the S.D.O. while he considers the question of approval of the Patta. He cannot be given any relief in these proceedings. 6. I do not agree with the finding of the Additional Commissioner that the patta should be cancelled merely on the ground that the opposite party has entered into possession even without the approval of the S.D.O. because if approval is not finally given to the Pattedar his possession would be unlawful and then different proceedings about the ejectment of trespass would have to be taken and there would be no question of the cancellation of the patta. 7. In such circumstances I do not agree with the recommendation made by the additional Commissioner. 7. In such circumstances I do not agree with the recommendation made by the additional Commissioner. Accordingly I upholding the order of the Additional Collector reject the reference and dismiss the revision.