JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, M. - This is a revision against the judgment dated 21.1.87 by which the learned Additional Commissioner rejected the revision and upheld the order of the trial court dated 30.1.86. The trial court has cancelled the patta granted in favour of the revisionist. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and D.G.C. (R) and perused the file. 3. The facts of the case are that proceedings under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act I of 1951 started against the revisionist on the ground that Sarman Lal, revisionist had land more than the prescribed by law and his patta should be cancelled. 4. The patta in question was granted on 24.11.63 of an area of 1970 acres. It is alleged that the revisionist has 7 acres land. His father is alive who had also about 24.24 acres land. Hence the patta granted in his favour may be cancelled. The trial court had cancelled the patta and it is held that by the order dated 7.11.70 the revisionist acquired land 9.37 acres. On 22.4.69, 1.26 acres and .99 acres was acquired on transfer by the revisionist. Hence he had more land than the prescribed by law at that time. 5. It is also held by the trial court that the revisionist Sarman Lal had been granted patta of 7.35 acres land on 3.12.65 along with his brother. But this patta will not be taken into consideration because it was granted after 1963. 6. Thus the revisionist was in possession over the land of 9.37 acres. It came later on in his name and has another land. Hence the total land became 13.16 acres and this was not in accordance with law. The ceiling at that time was 12.50 acres. Hence the patta was cancelled. 7. The learned Additional Commissioner has followed the same reasoning given by the trial court and rejected the revision. 8. On the face of it the reasoning given by both the courts below are illegal. The trial court itself has held that the land acquired after 1963 should not be taken into consideration but strangely enough at one stage this court has calculated the land acquired in the year 1970 as the land of the revisionist. There cannot be any presumption that the son must have a share in the land of the father while the father is alive. There cannot be any presumption that the son must have a share in the land of the father while the father is alive. Hence the finding giver, on the presumption is no finding and it is based on no evidence. Moreover, the land of the father or the family member cannot be considered or presumed to be the land of the allottee. 9. Thus the courts below have based their finding on presumption and not on the evidence which is a jurisdictional error and error apparent on the face of it. 10. I, therefore, allow the revision, and set aside.