JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member - This is a revision against the judgment dated August 9, 1983 of the learned Additional Commissioner by which he dismissed the revision and upheld the order of the trial court dated June 8, 1982. 2. Heard the learned counsel 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 1 of 1951(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') started against the present revisionist on the ground that the lease holder was the resident of another circle and he is not landless agricultural labourer. The revisionist filed objection in respect of patta granted in the year 1962. The parties adduced their evidence and trial court by its order dated June 8, 1982 cancelled the Patta. It is held by the trial court that the lease-holder was the resident of Town Area hence he was not the resident of that circle. Moreover, he has land in village Sakrauni and Mudiavedpur. Hence it cannot be said that he is the landless agricultural labourer, thirdly, it is held that there were other persons in the village and lastly, that the provisions of Sections 173 to 176 of the act have not been followed. The learned D.G.C. has argued that all the grounds given are valid, hence there is no reason to set aside the order of the trial court dated June 8, 1982. 4. It is to be noted that the Patta was granted in the year 1962 hence the provisions of Section 198 is to be seen which were relevant in that period. 4. It is to be noted that the Patta was granted in the year 1962 hence the provisions of Section 198 is to be seen which were relevant in that period. Section 198 has been substituted and amended several times and as it stood in the year 1962 the order of preference was as follow:- (1-A) A recognised education institution for a purpose connected with instruction in agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry; (a) A landless agricultural labourer or an Asami, residing in the circle who does not hold any land whether as Bhumidhar, Sirdar or Adhivasi; (b) A Bhumidhar, Sirdar or Adhivasi, who is holding land less than 6 acres in area in circle; (c) A co-operative farm established under this Act holding land within the jurisdiction of the L.M.C. to enable it to possess a suitable area of land; and (d) Any other person......." Explanations - A person shall be deemed to be a landless agricultural labourer if he hold land not exceeding such maximum as may be prescribed in that behalf....." 5. Rule 174-B of Act 1 of 1951 provides that a person comes within the meaning of landless agricultural labourer who does not hold land more than 3? acres. Under Section 337 of the Act in Bundelkhand area while computing the are fixed under the Act as two acres shall count as one acre. That means of double of 6 acres that is 12.50 acres. 6. From the extract of 61-Kha it is clear that Zafar Khan had 3.77 acres land in Sakrauni and .81 acres land in Mudiavedpur. The land allotted is 4.25 acres. Hence the whole land is 8.33 acres which is in any case less that the area prescribed and the maximum area provided alongwith the allotted area shall not exceed 12.50 acres as mentioned in proviso 2 of Section 198 of Act 1 of 1951, as it stood is 1962. (According to Section 337 of the Act in a case of Bundelkhand it should be 6 x 2. That means 12.50 acres). Thus according to this provision the revisionist is landless agricultural labourer and the land allotted to him does not exceed in any case more than 12.50 acres land. No doubt the revisionist is resident of another circle but he has got land in that circle as is evident from the extract of 61-Kha mentioned above. That means 12.50 acres). Thus according to this provision the revisionist is landless agricultural labourer and the land allotted to him does not exceed in any case more than 12.50 acres land. No doubt the revisionist is resident of another circle but he has got land in that circle as is evident from the extract of 61-Kha mentioned above. The village Sakrauni falls within the circle Bamhorighat which is evident from the statement of Zafar Khan whose statement has been referred to and relied on by the trial court. Hence it is clear that he had land within the circle in which the land as allotted i.e. within the circle Bhamorighat and he had 3.77 acres land in village Sakrauni. The person in Bundelkhand district in 1962 having less that 6 acres land shall be deemed to be landless agricultural labourer. The land allotted to him shall not exceed 12.50 acres land. The person may not be resident of that circle but if he ha got land in that circle he is entitled to get an allotment in accordance with the order provisions of the act. Thus the land could be allotted to him under clause (b) of Section 198 of the Act as it stood in the year 1962. The other pint is that the provisions of Rules of Section 173-176 have not been complied. The trial court has mentioned that the register was not available hence it should be presumed that the rules were not followed. Such presumption cannot be drawn and such a presumption cannot prevail when there is a statement on oath that all these provision were followed. 7. Lastly, the learned D.G.C. has contended that the order of preference has not been followed and there is a finding that other scheduled caste and landless agricultural labourers were available in the circle. Hence the land should be allotted to them and not to the person who come under category (b). This contention is also not correct because Rule 174 as it stood in the year 1962 provides that the list of persons present and who expressed their desire to be admitted to the land shall be prepared. Hence the preference is to be considered by this list. That means it is irrelevant that some person of scheduled caste or landless agricultural labourer were in the circle. Hence the preference is to be considered by this list. That means it is irrelevant that some person of scheduled caste or landless agricultural labourer were in the circle. The preference is only to be seen among the persons who were present and opted for allotment. The general presumption cannot be drawn and the lease cannot be cancelled on such ground. 8. Thus it is clear that all the grounds for the cancellation given by the trial court and the same followed by the revisional court in its judgment dated August 9, 1983 are based on legal irrelevant considerations. 9. I, therefore, allow their revision and set aside the orders dated August 9, 1983 and June 8, 1982.