JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This revision has been filed against the order of Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, dated 18-10-77 in revision No. 156 of 1977. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Gordhan, son of Sugan, moved an application under rule 115-P of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, against Jamil and others, alleging that plot No. 143 was reserved for Harijan Abadi during consolidation proceedings and the land was allotted to the opposite parties against the provisions of law, and that they were minors and had 70-80 Bighas of land were not in any need for allotment of Abadi site. The trial Court cancelled the lease vide its order dated 12-4-77. Against that, a revision was preferred before the Additional Commissioner, who was of the view that the land could not be allotted to persons other than scheduled castes. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties, and perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the opposite party has drawn my attention to Rule 115-L of U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Rules. Under rule 115-L, sub-rule (4), it has been provided that in making allotment of housing sites, the order of preference mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 122-C shall be observed. Section 122-C, U.P.Z.A. & L, R. Act reads as under:- "122-C. (1) The Assistant Collector incharge of the sub-division of his own motion or on the resolution of the Land Management Committee, shall earmark any of the following classes of land for the provision of abadi sites for the members of the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes and agricultural labourers and village artisans - (a) lands referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 117 and vested in the Gaon Sabha under that section ; (b) land coming into possession of the Land Management Committee under Section 194 or under any other provision of this Act; (c) any other land which is deemed to be or become vacant under Section 13, Section 144, Section 163, Section 186 or Section 211 ; (d) where the land earmarked for the extension of abadi and reserved as abadi site for Harijans under the U. P, Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953, is considered by him to be insufficient, and land earmarked for other public purposes under that Act is available, then any part of the land so available. (2) Notwithstanding anything in Sections 122-A, 195, 196, 197 and 198 of this Act, or in Sections 4, 15, 16, 19, 28-B and 34 of the United Provinces Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, the Land Management Committee may, with the previous approval of the Assistant Collector incharge of the sub-division, allot for purposes of building of houses, to persons referred to in sub-section (3) - (a) any land earmarked under sub-section (1); (b) any land earmarked for the extension of abadi sites for Harijans under the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953; (c) any abadi site referred to in clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of Section 117 and vested in the Gaon Sabha; (d) any land acquired for the said purpose under the land Acquisition Act, 1894, (3) The following order of preference shall be observed in making allotments under sub-section (2) - (i) an agricultural labourer or village artisan residing in the village and belonging to a scheduled caste or scheduled Tribe ; (ii) any other agricultural labourer or village artisan residing the village ; (iii) any other person residing in the village and belonging to a schedule caste or scheduled Tribe. 5. Sub-section (3) of Section 122-C provides three categories of persons for allotment. The learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the revisionist belonged to category (ii) of sub-section (3). Against this, the learned counsel for the opposite party says that the revisionists were not agricultural labourers and as such they were eligible persons for allotment. The learned Additional Collector has given not a finding in this respect and says that they were cultivators and they had already sufficient land for abadi. Consequently, I am of the view that revisionists were not eligible persons for allotment. As such no illegality has been committed by the trial court. With these observations, this revision fails and is dismissed.