JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This reference has been made by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, vide his order dated 11-10-84 for setting aside the trial Court's order dated 30-9-82 so far as the revisionists are concerned. 2. It appears that proceedings under Section 198(4) of U.P. Act I of 1951 were initiated against 38 persons on the complaint of Narain and others. The trial court cancelled the leases granted in favour of Siya Ram & Sureshpal, sons of Chhotey Lal, Ram Kumar, son of Dharmu, Vijaypal son of Ajrayal, Maiku son of Gokul, Behari son of Niddha, Moti, Shivdin, Chhota, Ram Swarup, Sabir Ali, Noora and Alli. The learned Additional Commissioner has recommended that the revisionists, Siya Ram, Sureshpal, Ram Kumar, Vijaypal and Ram Swarup were landless agricultural labourers and as such their leases should not have been cancelled by the trial court. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned DGC (R), and have perused the record. 4. Since no revision was filed against the order of the trial court dated 30-9-82 by other persons, as such this order will not govern the fate of leases granted in favour of these persons. 5. It was alleged that Siya Ram and Sureshpal were nephews of Chairman, LMC, and as such under the provisions of Section 28-C of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, no leases could have been granted to them except with the prior permission of the Collector. Relying on 1982 R.D. 216 Smt. Vidyawati v. Gaon Sabha, the learned counsel for the revisionists submits that these provisions were not applicable to the leases granted in favour of the nephews of Pradhan as it had not been established that the Pradhan derived any benefit by the grant of leases to them. Against this, the learned DGC (R) submits that the lessees were nephews of Pradhan and no evidence was there to establish that the Pradhan could not get any benefit and it is obvious that these leases were granted for the benefit of the Pradhan. 6. Against this, the learned DGC (R) submits that the lessees were nephews of Pradhan and no evidence was there to establish that the Pradhan could not get any benefit and it is obvious that these leases were granted for the benefit of the Pradhan. 6. The provisions contained in Section 28-C of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act are as under :- "28-C. (1) No member of office-bearer of Gaon Panchayat or Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti shall, otherwise than with the permission in writing of the Collector, knowingly acquire or attempt to acquire or stipulate for or agree to receive of continue to have himself or through a partner or otherwise any share or interest in any licence, lease, sale, exchange, contract of employment with by or on behalf of the Samiti concerned." 7. I find that a plain reading of Section 28-C of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act makes it amply clear that unless it is established that any benefits accrued to the members and officers of the Gaon Panchayat or the Land Management Committee, it could not be said that these provisions were attracted against these persons. There was nothing on record to establish that any benefit was derived by the Chairman L.M.C. by the grant of leases in favour of these persons. Consequently, I am of the view that in the instant case the provisions of section 28-C were not attracted. As such on this score the leases granted in favour of nephews of Pradhan could not be cancelled. 8. The learned DGC (R) submits that leases were granted to persons who were not agricultural labourers and there was no evidence oh record of establish that they were agricultural labourers. The learned counsel for the revisionists could not show me any evidence on record which could establish that the revisionists were agricultural labourers also. For eligibility for grant of leases to persons, it ts essential that they should be landless persons and also agricultural labourers. These are the two ingredients for the eligibility of an applicant for grant of a lease. Since there is no evidence on file to show whether these persons were landless agricultural labourers, there is no alternative left to this Court except to remand the matter to the trial court to find out whether the revisionists were agricultural labourers also and if they were landless and agricultural labourers both, then their leases could be upheld. Since there is no evidence on file to show whether these persons were landless agricultural labourers, there is no alternative left to this Court except to remand the matter to the trial court to find out whether the revisionists were agricultural labourers also and if they were landless and agricultural labourers both, then their leases could be upheld. With these observations, the order passed by the trial court, so far as the revisionists are concerned, is set aside, and the matter is sent back to the trial court for decision afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above.