JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member. - This is a revision filed by Sri Abha and 25 others against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated 3-3-1982 dismissing the revision against the order of the Additional Collector Muzaffarnagar dated 5-8-1981 through which pattas of the revisionist as well as a large number of other persons were cancelled under Section 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 3. The learned counsel for both the parties agree that the revision filed by these revisionists, must be allowed and the case should be remanded back to the trial court for fresh decision because a trial court did not examine the evidence by itself and based its judgment on the evidence taken by the Tahsildar. 4. I find force in this argument of both the parties and, therefore, I am inclined to allow the revision and to remand the case back to the trial court for fresh trial. 5. However the learned counsel for the revisionist contends that the order of the Additional Collector should be completely reversed affecting even those persons who have not come in revision and those pattas have also been cancelled by the Additional Collector. This argument is opposed by the learned counsel of the opposite party. He say-; that then order of the Additional Collector should be reversed with respect to the case of the present revisionist only and it should be allowed to remain untouched so far as it concerns the other Pattedars whose pattas have been cancelled but who have not challenged the order of the Collector in revision. 6. The learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on ruling reported in 1972 ALJ page 435 Abdul Junaid v. D.D.C, in which it was held that if the record has once been called by the superior authority hearing the revision it should not dismiss the revision mainly on technical ground. I have carefully gone through this ruling and I find that it does not apply at all to the present case. In this ruling the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court is that if a revision has come up for hearing before the revisional court it should be disposed on merits even though there is no technical defect. I have carefully gone through this ruling and I find that it does not apply at all to the present case. In this ruling the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court is that if a revision has come up for hearing before the revisional court it should be disposed on merits even though there is no technical defect. In that case a copy of the order of the Consolidation Officer was not filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the latter dismissed the revision holding it to be incompetent on this ground alone. The Hon'ble High Court directed the Deputy Director to dispose of the revision on merits because the record was already before him and merely because a certain copy of the order had not been filed it could not prevent him from deciding the case. In my opinion the facts of this ruling are entirely different from the facts of the instant case. In the revision before this court several persons did not file any revision nor did they join the present revisionist in filing this revision in order to challenge the order of the Additional Collector. It follows that they had no grievance against the order of the Collector and that is why they did not prefer to bring in the revision. Consequently there is no question of setting aside the order of the Additional Collector with respect to such person who did not Challenge his order in revision. There is, therefore, force in the argument of the learned counsel for the opposite party that while allowing this revision the order of the Additional Collector can be set aside only with regards to those persons who have filed the revision and it would remain unaffected so far as it concerns those pattedars who had not filed any revision. The mere fact that such persons have been made opposite party in the present revision would not make the position different. It is obvious that they did not file any revision, hence they cannot be deemed to be aggrieved against the order of the Additional Collector. 7. In view of the above discussion the revision is allowed and the order of both the courts below are set aside so far as they relate to the case of the present revisionist alone. It is obvious that they did not file any revision, hence they cannot be deemed to be aggrieved against the order of the Additional Collector. 7. In view of the above discussion the revision is allowed and the order of both the courts below are set aside so far as they relate to the case of the present revisionist alone. The case is remanded back to the Additional Collector to decide it afresh according to law covering the present revisionist.