JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - These revisions have been filed against the judgment and order dated 3-12-80 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in Revision no 43/26 of 1979-80. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on the report of Tahsil, proceedings under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act I of 1951 were initiated against Sunder Lal son of Gorelal and Shibbu son of Anandi, residents of village Satpura, Pargana Mauranipur, district Jhansi, show cause notices were issued to allottees and the Land Management Committee. It was alleged that Sunder Lal was not a landless agricultural labourer and his father had 15.21 acres of land and his grandmother had 5.98 acres of land, that priorities with regard to grant of lease were not observed, that Shibbu, son of Anandi had 12.94 acres of land prior to the grant of patta, and that plot numbers were not mentioned in the proclamation. Both the two cases were consolidated by the trial court and were decided together. The leases granted to the revisionists were cancelled by the trial court, against which revisions were preferred before the learned Additional Commissioner, who also dismissed the revisions. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties, and perused the record. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner is of the view that in the agenda and proclamation the plot numbers were not mentioned and the proclamation was not done in accordance with the provisions of Rule 173 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules. He has also found that in the family of Sunder Lal, there were 15.24 acres of land in the name of Gorelal, the father of the lessee, and an area of 5.98 acres in the name of his grandmother, and that the father of Shibbu had 12.94 acres of land prior to the grant of patta. 5. Sub-section (1) of Section 198 provides for priorities to be observed in the order of preference, and Explanation (1) attached to this sub-section lays down as under : " Explanation. 5. Sub-section (1) of Section 198 provides for priorities to be observed in the order of preference, and Explanation (1) attached to this sub-section lays down as under : " Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section - (1) 'landless' refers to a person who or whose spouse or minor children bold no land as bhumidhar, sirdar or asami and also held no land as such within two years, immediately preceding the date of allotment." In view of Explanation (1) attached to Section 198 of U.P. Act I of 1951, the land standing in the name of the father will not be added to the land of a major son, but the person getting the land will have to establish that he was a landless agricultural labourer. A person whose sole source of livelihood is agricultural labour is an agricultural labourer, as is evident from Explanation (2) to Section 198. In view of this, the land standing in the names of father and grandmother of the lessee will not be treated a bar to the grant of patta to Sander Lal, and also the land standing in the name of the father of Shibbu will also not be a bar for grant of patta. I, therefore, do not agree with the learned Additional Commissioner so far as he says that lessees could not be granted in favour of these two persons. 6. Regarding the proclamation, the learned Additional Commissioner is of the view that the provisions contained in Rule 173 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules were not observed. Provisions of Rule 173 read as under : "173. Whenever the Land Management Committee intends to admit any person to land under Sections 195 or 197, it shall announce by beat of drum in the circle of the Gaon Sabha in which the land is situate at lease seven days before the date of meeting for admission of land, the numbers of plots, their areas and the date on which admission thereto is to be made." The provisions of Rule 173 are mandatory and must be observed before a lease is executed in favour of any person by the Land Management Committee. Since in the instant case, in the proclamation, no plot numbers were mentioned, the persons residing in the circle of the Gaon Sabha could not know for which land they should make an application for allotment. Since in the instant case, in the proclamation, no plot numbers were mentioned, the persons residing in the circle of the Gaon Sabha could not know for which land they should make an application for allotment. Thus, it will be presumed that no plot numbers were proclaimed in the circle of the Gaon Sabha, and as such the provisions contained in Rule 173 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules were not observed. Thus, the view taken by the learned Additional Commissioner in this regard suffers from no illegality. On account of this, the leases granted in favour of the revisionists cannot be held to be valid. 7. Consequently, these revisions fail and are hereby dismissed. 8. This order will govern Revisions no. 51 & 52 of 1980-81/district Jhansi.