JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, Member - This is a reference made by the Additional Commissioner II, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, in revision petition No. 95 of 1985, Ballia - Smt. Mulia etc. v. Abhai Narain etc. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Abhai Narain Moved an application in the court of the Collector, Ballia for the cancellation of the lease executed in favour of Deshrath and other. During the course of the proceedings, Dasharath died. After his death, an objection was made that the proceedings had abated. The trial Court rejected the objection on the ground that since Mahendra, Brijbasi, Banwari and Raghubir, sons of the deceased Dasharath were already impleaded as parties to the case, the proceedings did not abate. The learned trial court also held that Smt. Mulia widow of Dasharath could not be heir of the deceased vis-a-vis his sons. Aggrieved by this order, Smt. Mulia preferred a revision before the Divisional Commissioner. The learned Additional Commissioner has observed that the land allotted for abadi side is neither Bhumidari nor Sirdari nor Asami and in such a case, the question of heirship is not covered by Section 171 and 172 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and the heirship is governed by Hindu Personal Law. Finding the order of the trial court against law, he made a recommendation to set aside partially the order of the trial court dated April 9, 1985. 3. The opposite party Abhai Narain filed objection against that recommendation contending that the disputed plot is the tenancy land within the meaning of the Act and the question of devolution of the deceased Dasharath shall not be governed by personal law but by the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. The learned counsel for the revisionist has maintained that devolution in the present case is governed by Hindu Personal Law. The learned counsel for the opposite party has maintained that devolution will be determined by the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 5. I have carefully considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Section 171 of the Act deals with the general order of succession. The learned counsel for the opposite party has maintained that devolution will be determined by the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 5. I have carefully considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Section 171 of the Act deals with the general order of succession. It provides that subject to the provision of Section 169, when a Bhumidhar, Sirdari or Asami being a male dies, his interest in his holding shall devolve in accordance with the order of succession given in the said section. It is quite clear from the above provision that the deceased must be a Bhumidar, Sirdar or Asami. The section provides for the succession of the male tenure holder whether Bhumidhar, Sirdari nor Asami after vesting. The deceased Dasharath in whose favour the land was allotted for Abadi site was neither Bhumidhar, Sirdar or Asami. The question of succession, therefore, will not be governed by the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Where any land or site is allotted in accordance with Rule 115-L to 115-Q of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules and a house is built thereon, then subject to the provision of sub-rule 2 to rule 115-R the allottee shall have no rights to transfer such land, site or house within a period of ten years form the date of the allotment. Sub-rule (2) to Rule 115-R lays down certain conditions for the allotment of land or site. Sub-rule 2(c) provides that succession shall be governed by personal law to which the allottee was subject to. The learned trial court, therefore erred in holding that the succession was governed by the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 6. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the reference made by the learned Additional Commissioner is accepted. The trial court's order dated April 9, 1985 is set aside and Smt. Mulia is held to be the heir of the deceased Dasharath along with his sons. Let records be returned to the courts below for disposal of the case according to law.