JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, Member - This is a reference made by the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi recommending to set aside the order of the Additional collector, Jaunpur passed in case No. 268 under Section 198(4) of the Zamindari Abolition and Land reforms Act in respect of land situated in village Sherpur pergana Anguli Tehsil Shahganj, district Jaunpur. 2. Briefly stated, the fact of the case are that one Jokhai moved an application to he Collector Jaunpur of February 6, 1977 for cancellation of the lease executed in favour of Smt. Chhabiraji and Sarju. The collector sent the complaint to the S.D.O for enquiry. The S.D.O., on his part sent the application to the tehsildar on April 7, 1978 for enquiry and report. The tehsildar called for a report form the Naib-Tahsildar. On June 14, 1978 the allottes filed an objection before the Naib-Tehsildar. Thereafter the proceedings were initiated in the court of the Additional Collector. In his report dated December 19, 1978, the D.G.C.(R.) reported that the Land in dispute was reserved land and the complaint was not maintainable land and the complaint was not maintainable. On his report the Additional Collector consigned the file on December 19, 1978. On January 20, 1979, Jokhai moved another application contending that the land in dispute is reserved for Abadi in respect of which no lease could be executed. On January 28, 1979, the allottee Smt. Chhabiraji moved an application contending that the plot number 168 is Abadi and that she could not come in possession of the allotted land. Sri P.K. Chatterji, Addition Collector abated the proceedings on July 23, 1981. Against this order, a revision petition was preferred in the court of Divisional Commissioner found that the trail court did not assign any reason for abating the proceedings without enquiry in whether the lease was executed according to rules or not. Another reason for cancellation operation under rule 29(c) of the Consolidation of Holdings Rules. The land could not be used for some other purpose nor could any lease be executed. The learned Additional Commissioner further pointed out that under rule 132 of the C.H. Rules, the right of Sirdari could not be conferred in respect of the land reserved of public purpose. The land could not be used for some other purpose nor could any lease be executed. The learned Additional Commissioner further pointed out that under rule 132 of the C.H. Rules, the right of Sirdari could not be conferred in respect of the land reserved of public purpose. Apart form this, no proclamation was made before executing the lease and there is no evidence to show that the plot number and area was mentioned at the time of the execution of the patta. The provisions of rule 173 of the Z.A. Rules were also not observed. The learned Additional Commissioner has also pointed out that there is nothing on the record to show that the members of the L.M.C. were informed three days earlier to the execution of the Patta. Form 57-ka, 57-kha and 58 were also not on the record. Besides this, Smt. Chhabiraji had herself moved an application for cancellation of the lease. Despite this, the learned trial court instead of cancelling the Patta, abated the proceeding. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist the opposite parties. The learned Additional Commissioner has given congent reason of cancelling the lease. I, therefore, agreeing with the learned Additional Commissioner, Accept the reference set aside the order of abatement passed by the learned trail court. The trial court is directed to take steps for cancellation of the lase according rules. Let records be returned to the court concerned.