JUDGMENT M. M. Gopal, Member. - This is a revision against the judgment dated 21-4-86 by which the trial court cancelled the patta. The learned Commissioner by his order dated 10-2-1987 recommended for quashing the aforesaid order. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and D.G.C. (R) and have also seen the relevant papers on the file. 3. The facts of the case are that a lease was granted in 1379 Fasli (1971) for 5.16 acres in village Khajuria. Notice was issued to the revisionist and the trial court has cancelled the patta and held that the lease-holder lived in Lalitpur for more than 15 years and he is not an agricultural labourer but is doing business. Hence he is not an eligible person for granting patta. It is also held that the lease holder lived in Lalitpur whereas the land belongs to village Khajuria. The learned Commissioner has recommended for quashing the aforesaid order on the ground that at the time of grant of patta the lease holder lived in village Khajuria which is evident from Extract K 1 and Ext K 2. It is also pointed out that the business was done in the year 1982. Thus from these facts it is clear that he was not doing any other business and he lived in village Khajuria. 4. The finding of the trial court is based on presumptions and surmises and this is not based on any legally relevant evidence on the record. Apart from this it is clear that there is no landless agricultural labourer in the village concerned and about 300 acres land is still vacant for allotment. Under such circumstances the position of eligibility of persons for granting lease does not arise. The question only arises when there are several claimants for the allotment of the land and the land is less in the village concerned, then the priority should be given to the persons as mentioned in the relevant provision. It does not mean that the list of persons eligible for lease mentioned in Section 198 (i) is exhaustive. In other words, it cannot be said that the lease cannot be granted to any other person except those mentioned in the aforesaid section. 5. It does not mean that the list of persons eligible for lease mentioned in Section 198 (i) is exhaustive. In other words, it cannot be said that the lease cannot be granted to any other person except those mentioned in the aforesaid section. 5. It is the right of the L.M.C. to grant lease to the person concerned so that the land in the village may not lie vacant and it may be utilised for the agricultural or alied purposes for the development of the circle concerned. Only when there is a dispute or there is any condition as mentioned above, priority should be given to the person narrated in the provision for the allotment. 6. The trial court has therefore based its finding on legally irrelevant considerations and has wrongly exercised the jurisdiction vested in it. 7. I, therefore allow the revision, set aside the order dated 21-4-1986 of trial court.