JUDGMENT M. M. Gopal, Member. - This is a revision against the judgment dated 30-10-1986 of the learned Additional Commissioner by which he dismissed the revision and upheld the judgment of the trial court dated 30-1-1986. The trial court has cancelled the patta. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and learned D.G.C. (R) and have also seen the relevant papers of the file. 3. The facts of the case are that a notice for cancellation proceedings started on 24-11-1963 in respect of an area of 6.25 acres land. In reply the present revisionist contended that, he had no land when the lease was granted and he lived apart from his father. The trial court by its order dated 30-1-1986 has cancelled the patta on the ground that the maximum area in Lalitpur district was 12.50 acres land. The revisionist had 10.45 acres land in his name in verg 4.Aa. This land was in his possession since 1366 and 1368 Fasli (i.e. 1959-60). (It will not be irrelevant to observe here that the period of limitation for acquiring right at that time was six years). Hence it was held that the lease-holder had already 10.45 acres land, hence he was not entitled to get a lease of 6.25 acres. It is also held that at that time his father had 11.54 acres land. On these grounds the lease was cancelled. The learned Additional Commissioner while dismissing the revision held that the lease-holder failed to prove that he lived apart from his father and his father had already land in his name. Apart from this on 22-11-65 by the order of the competent court the lease-holder acquired sirdari rights on the basis of the entry in verg 4-Aa. Thus both the courts below have held that he was not entitled to get the lease on the ground that his father had some land and he was entered in verg 4-Aa. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that at the time of the grant of the lease he was the landless agricultural labourer because he did not hold any land as bhumidhar or asami (or as sirdar). He was a rank trespasser recorded in verg 4-Aa over the land of the Gaon Sabha. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that at the time of the grant of the lease he was the landless agricultural labourer because he did not hold any land as bhumidhar or asami (or as sirdar). He was a rank trespasser recorded in verg 4-Aa over the land of the Gaon Sabha. The land in the name of his father cannot be presumed to be his land and on that ground also it cannot be held that he was not landless agricultural labourer. The learned D.G.C. (R) has contended that at the time of grant of patta he was recorded in possession over some land and subsequently he acquired right by the order dated 22-11-1965. In other words, he must have acquired right long before 1965 on the basis of possession hence he was not entitled to get the lease in question. 5. I am unable to accept the contentions of the learned D.G.C. (R). The fact that the land in the name of the father should not be computed with the land of the lease-holder at the time of the grant of the lease, is clear and it has also been held by this court. 6. So far as the question whether the person recorded in verg 4-Aa can be said to be bhumidhar, sirdar or asami of that laud or not, I hold that a person recorded in verg 4-Aa cannot be said to be a bhumidhar, sirdar or asami. He is trespasser and trespasser cannot have any right over the land. Only on being recorded as trespasser he may acquire a right if he is not ejected within a period prescribed and that right is acquired subsequently. 7. The full bench of this Hon'ble court (in Shyam Singh v. Nathola and others, 1982 R.D. page 300), held that if a trespasser is in possession over the certain land, it does not cease to be a vacant land. It means the land is to be considered as vacant land and it cannot be held to be the holding of any person or of a trespasser. 8. Moreover, if the person is recorded since 1366-1368F in verg 4-Aa, he can only acquire right after six years (which was the period prescribed at that time for ejectment of trespasser). Hence it cannot be said that he had matured light in the year 1959 or 1960. 8. Moreover, if the person is recorded since 1366-1368F in verg 4-Aa, he can only acquire right after six years (which was the period prescribed at that time for ejectment of trespasser). Hence it cannot be said that he had matured light in the year 1959 or 1960. He can only acquire right after the expiry of six years and its declaration on 22-11-65. 9. Thus in my opinion, both the courts have given their finding on legally irrelevant considerations and they have committed an error apparent on the face of it. 10. I, therefore, allow the revision and set aside the order and judgments dated 30-10-1986 of the learned Additional Commissioner and dated 30-1-1986 of the Additional Collector. 11. The parties shall bear their own costs.