JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This reference has been made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, Smt. Kuldeep Ranjeet Singh, vide her order dated 20-6-80. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on the report of Tahsil dated 1-12-77, proceedings under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act I of 1951 were initiated against Ram Bahori, with the allegations that a lease was granted in his favour in respect of plots no. 62 (area 0-12-0) and 63 (area 0-12-0) on 5-2-76 by the Land Management Committee illegally because this land was of public utility and was a tank and a mond. A show cause notice was issued to Ram Bahori, who filed an objection alleging that the lease was granted to him in accordance with the provisions of law. The question was maintained by the trial court. Against that order, a revision was preferred by the State of U.P. before the learned Additional Commissioner who has made the recommendation aforesaid. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner is of the view that the land was a tank and no person could be admitted to it as a bhumidhar. 5. Section 195 of U.P. Act I of 1951 provides the provision regarding admission to land by the Land Management Committee. The said Section read as under :- "195. The Land Management Committee with the previous approval of the Assistant Collector incharge of the Sub-division, shall have the right to admit any person as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights to any land (other than land falling in any classes mentioned in Section 132 where - (a) the land is vacant land, (b) the land is vested in the Gaon Sabha under Section 117, or (c) the land has come into the possession of Land Management Committee under Section 194 or under any other provision of this Act." From this, it is evident that the land falling in any of the classess mentioned in Section 132 is not to be settled with any person residing in the circle as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights. Section 132 of the Act reads as under :- "132. Section 132 of the Act reads as under :- "132. Land in which bhumidhari rights shall not accrue - Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 131, but without prejudice to the provisions of Section 119, bhumidhari rights shall not accrue in - (a) pasture land or lands covered by water and used for the purpose of growing singhara or other produce or land in the bed of a river and used for casual or occasional cultivation ; (b) such tracts of shifting or unstable cultivation as the State Government may specify by notification in the Gazette ; and (c) lands declared by the State Government by notification in the official Gazette, to be intended or set apart for taungya plantation or grove lands of a Gaon Sabha or a local authority or land acquired or held for a public purpose and in particular and without prejudice to the generality of this clause - (i) lands set apart for military encamping grounds, (ii) lands included within railway or canal boundaries, (iii) lands situate within the limits of any cantonment, (iv) lands included in sullage farms or trenching grounds belonging as such to a local authority. (v) lands acquired by a town improvement trust in accordance with a scheme sanctioned under Section 42 of the U.P. Town Improvement Act, 1919 (U.P. Act VII of 1919), or by a municipality for a purpose mentioned in clause (a) or clause (c) of Section 8 of the U.P. Municipality Act, 1916 (U.P. Act VII of 1916), and (vi) lands set apart for public purposes under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (U.P. Act V of 1954)." 6. From the provisions contained in Section 132, it is evident that, to land Covered by water, no admission Could be made by the Land Management Committee. In the instant Case, land was a tank. As such no bhumidhari rights could accrue to any person oh the basis of a lease granted in his favour in respect of such land, and the Land Management Committee had no authority under the law to lease out such land to any person. 7. In view of this, the reference is accepted, the order dated 20-6-80 of the trial court is set aside, and the lease granted in favour of the opposite party is cancelled.