JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhatkia, Member (J.) - This revision has been preferred against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut dated 18-12-1981 dismissing the revision against the order of the Additional Collector, Ghaziabad dated 5-6-1981 cancelling the leases executed in favour of the revisionist on the ground that the land is being used as cremation ground for the Harijans. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 3. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that a portion of plot No. 157 has been allotted to the revisionist but the whole plot is recorded as Banjar and even to the consolidation operations this land was not set a part for shamshan and the entry of banjar was maintained. He further argued that the trial court agreed with the entry but it cancelled the patta on the basis of the report of the Tahsildar and the S.D.O. who reported that it was being used as shamshan by the Harijans. It is argued that this report is inadmissible and since the learned Additional Collector did not himself make any inspection on the spot no finding could be based on such report. 4. I find force in the contention raised above. It was the duty of the trial court to have recorded the evidence by itself and if it found any need it should have itself made the local inspection. It is not administrative matter in which the orders may be passed on the basis of the reports of the sub-ordinate officer. Proceedings of Section 198 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 are judicial nature hence the judgement cannot be based on the report of any sub-ordinate officer or court. Since the Additional Collector himself did not make any inspection on the spot he could not based his finding on the so-called report of the S.D.O. or the Tahsildar. From the documentary evidence it is proved that the ground is recorded as Banjar and there is no entry of shamshan thereon. During the consolidation operation also the entry of Banjar was maintained and the land was not set a part for the purposes of Shamshan. In such circumstances this land cannot be deemed to fall under Section 132 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 for public purposes hence the L.M.C. was within its right to execute patta thereof under Section 195 of the Act. In such circumstances this land cannot be deemed to fall under Section 132 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 for public purposes hence the L.M.C. was within its right to execute patta thereof under Section 195 of the Act. It is apparent from the judgement of both the courts below that the revisionists are eligible persons for getting the allotment of the land. The pattas executed in their favour could not, therefore, be cancelled on the ground mentioned in the orders of the courts below. Their orders suffer from material irregularity and must be set aside. 5. In view of the above discussion this revision is allowed and the orders passed by both the courts below in respect of the revisionist are set aside and the pattas executed in their favour by the L.M.C. was ordered to be maintained.