JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member - This is a revision against the judgment dated January 2, 1984 of the learned Additional Commissioner by which he dismissed the revision and upheld the order of the trial court dated August 21, 1982. 2. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the file. 3. The facts of the case are that Sita Ram filed an application for cancellation of Patta in favour of Ramjit, and Ram Swarup in respect of plot No. 7/1(area 6 Bighas 3 Biswas) and 78-Min (area 3 Biswas), 302 (area 1 Bigha 4 Biswas) and 7/1-Min(area 4 Bighas 12 Biswas). It is alleged that Sita Ram was in possession since long and he has got the house in these plots. It was not vacant land and the allotment was not legal. The opposite parties have filed an objection that the Patta was done in accordance with the rules by the L.M.C. and they are entitled to have the Patta in respect of the land in suit. Report was also sought from the Tahsildar and then the trial court by its order dated August 21, 1982 rejected the application and held that the Patta was done in accordance with rules. A revision was filed and that revision was rejected on the ground that the land was properly allotted and if in some portion the house of the applicant, Sita Ram is found that may be deleted from the said allotment. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that L.M.C. was not made party, it cannot be said that the enquiry may be done and his application may be rejected at the same time, that Ramjit had notice after getting allotted portion of the land, that the Patta was not in accordance with law, that the procedure as laid down was not followed and the land was not vacant land. The learned counsel for the opposite party has contended that the application was given by Sita Ram and it was his duty to implead L.M.C. as party although he has implead three parties in his application. Now he cannot take the advantage that the L.M.C was not made party. The learned counsel for the opposite party has contended that the application was given by Sita Ram and it was his duty to implead L.M.C. as party although he has implead three parties in his application. Now he cannot take the advantage that the L.M.C was not made party. No irregularity in procedure or law was found in the allotment and the point that Ramjit will have excess land cannot be decided on the ground because he is recorded as one of the tenure holders in respect of certain portions of the area. So far as the share of Ramjit is concerned it is not determined (or clear) from the extract. It is also contended that the possession of Sita Ram has not been held by any court and it also cannot be held because an application has already been filed in the trail court for the cancellation of his (Sita Ram's) name in original application. Proceedings was going on and an application was filed by Smt. Shanti Devi and Sita Ram with the allegation that in the original application the name of Smt. Shanti Devi should be written in place of Sita Ram. In other words, the land was in possession of Smt. Shanti Devi and the house was of Smt. Shanti Devi and not of Sita Ram. Under such circumstances, it cannot be held that only because Sita Ram alleges that he was in possession of the land, hence the land was not vacant. The application for cancellation has been rejected by the courts below hence it is immaterial whether the L.M.C. was party or not. Moreover, even if the statement of Sita Ram (or the joint application of Sita Ram and Smt. Shanti Devi) is to be taken into consideration, it does not appear that Sita Ram lived there and had any house. Apart from this the court below have held that there was no interest and right of the applicant, Sita Ram (or Smt. Shanti Devi if considered to be applicant in place or Sita Ram for the argument sake) over the land in suit. It cannot be said that only because in a very small portion of the land there is a construction, if any, the whole allotment of so much area should be set aside, when the proceedings has been held in accordance with law and persons were entitled to get the Patta. It cannot be said that only because in a very small portion of the land there is a construction, if any, the whole allotment of so much area should be set aside, when the proceedings has been held in accordance with law and persons were entitled to get the Patta. So far as the point raised about the excess land in favour of Ramjit, after the alleged allotment, is concerned, it is argued that on the basis of extract of 1387 Fasli to 1392 F. in which Ram Vriksh, Ram Autar, Ramjit, Budhwa, Jagmania, Hansphalia and Bhukhali are recorded and the area of the land is 27 Bighas 14 Biswas, hence the share of Ramjit in this very plot will be more than 3.125 acres, but from the mere entry the share of a person cannot be determined and it cannot be said that the share of any one person is ?th or 1/10th and on this ground also the share of one person cannot be decided at this stage. 5. Hence in may opinion even from the point of equity and justice it does not appear that the matter be sent back for deciding the question raised by the revisionist at this stage. There is no jurisdictional error or error on the face of it. The revision has no force and it is dismissed.