JUDGMENT Parmatma Singh, Member. - This reference has been made by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, vide his order dated 15-7-85 for setting aside the trial court's order dated 31-7-79. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Land Management Committee Chak Gajraj, Tahsil Dalmau, District Rae Bareli, executed a lease deed in favour of Ram Shanker, revisionist, through its resolution dated 7-8-66 in respect of plot No. 3, area 3-10-0. An application was moved by Pooran and others against the lessee alleging that the land was a tank, that an asami patta was granted in their favour by the Land Management Committee, that they had been in possession over that land, and that without dispossessing them from the tank any new lease could not be granted. It was also alleged that no proclamation was made in accordance with the provisions of law. The revisionist, Ram Shanker, contested these allegations and alleged that the land was not a tank on the spot and as such a lease for sirdari rights could be granted to him, and that Pooran was not in possession over the land in dispute. The application was rejected on 9-5-74 but in revision the matter was remanded and thereafter on 31-7-79 the application was allowed and the lease granted in favour of the revisionist was cancelled. The trial court held that the lease holder could not prove that proclamation was made in accordance with the provisions of law. It also held that a lease for asami rights could have been executed and no lease for sirdari rights could be granted. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the lease was a forged one as there had been a cutting in the lease deed. It has also been alleged that no proclamation was made. The learned Additional Commissioner is of the view that the opposite parties were contesting the case accepting that the lease was granted in respect of plot No. 3 and not in respect of plot No. 2, and as such, it could not be said that plot numbers were wrongly written. The learned Additional Commissioner is also of the view that it was the duty of Pooran, opposite party, to establish that proclamation was not properly done. The learned Additional Commissioner is also of the view that it was the duty of Pooran, opposite party, to establish that proclamation was not properly done. It has also been held that pooran has not filed any extract of khasra in which he was recorded in possession. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that consolidation operations took place in the village and the entries made during consolidation operations have become final and it cannot be challenged at this stage. Against this, the learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that these are proceedings for cancellation of lease and as such the entries made during consolidation operations will not stand as a bar to the instant proceedings, and that no lease of sirdari rights could be granted in respect of a tank. He further submits that the court had neither the power to grant a lease nor to convert the lease into that of asami. 6. I find that under provisions of Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act I of 1951 the Collector has to examine the validity of a lease granted by the Land Management Committee in respect of allotments made under Section 195 of U.P. Act I of 1951. Section 198 (4) reads as under : - "198 (4) The Collector may of his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment of land inquire in the manner prescribed into such allotment and if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular, he may cancel the allotment and the lease, if any. Section 195 of the Act lays down that leases for bhumidhari rights could be granted in respect of land not falling in any of the classes mentioned of Section 132. That section reads as follows : - "195. The Land Management Committee with the previous approval of the Assistant Collector in-charge of the sub-division shall have the right to admit any person as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights to any land (other than land falling in any of the classes mentioned in Section 132 where - (a) the land is vacant land, (b) the land is vested in the Gaon Sabha under Section 117, or (c) the land has come into the possession of Land Management Committee under Section 194 or under any other provision of this Act." 7. Admittedly, the land is a tank and it fails in category (a) of Section 132 of the Act, From this it is evident that a lease deed in respect of land falling under one of categories mentioned in Section 132 could not be granted conferring sirdari rights or bhumidhari with transferable rights. The act of granting leases in respect of property of Gaon Sabha is to be done by the Land Management Committee concerned. The power of the Court is to examine the validity of leases and as such the Court has no power to grant any lease or to convert a lease of one category to another category. In the instant case the learned Additional Commissioner has recommended that the lease of sirdari rights should be converted into that for asami rights. This cannot be done by this Court. Leases in respect of tank could be granted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 115-S of U.P.Z A.& L.R. Rules. As such the recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner cannot be accepted. Consequently, the lease granted in favour of the revisionist cannot be maintained. 8. The result is that the lease of sirdari rights granted in favour of the revisionist is cancelled. However, this order will not stand as a bar to the grant of a lease of asami rights to the revisionist in accordance with the provisions of law. With these observations, the revision is hereby dismissed.