JUDGMENT Nathoo Lal, Member - This is a revision filed against the judgement and order dated 29-8-89 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad in revision No. 162 of 78 arising from the order dated 27-4-78 passed by the Additional Collector, Farukhabad in case no. 122 of 77-78 under Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act hereinafter to be called the "Act." 2. The facts of the case in brief are that proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act were sought to be initiated on the application given by opposite-parties Ram Avtar and several others, residents of village Guran Shadi Nagar Pargana Shamshabad East, district Farrukhabad The allegations included the facts that the complainant Ram Avtar is the Up-Pradhan of the village and others are the members of the Gaon Sabha and the Pradhan of the village Sri Hansraj managed to get plot no. 81 (area 2.50 acres of the village allotted to his son Ram Niwas, which was cancelled and thereafter he again managed to secure permission in favour of his other sons from the S.D.O. in favour of the plantation or trees over the same land for which no meeting of the L. M. C. was held nor any agenda or notice was issued. It was further alleged that the land in dispute of plot no. 81 along with other plots is land of public utility and is used as Khaliyan and as pasture land by the inhabitants of the village. It was disclosed in the complaint that plot no. 81 (3 acres) for which permission has been obtained cannot be leased out because the Gaon Sabha land is less than 8% of the total area. Notices were issued and objections were filed by the Revisionists Girish Chandra and Santosh Chandra strongly opposing the initiation of proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act on die grounds that no allotment of the Gaon Sabha land has actually been made in their favour and the question of its cancellation naturally does not arise it was disclosed m the objections that under the Government scheme of Rural afforestation and plantation of trees as a campaign necessary permission was obtained for doing plantation over plot no. 81 (3 acres) of the village and thus there has been a contract between the revisionist Girish Chandra and Santosh Lnandra and opposite-parties, on the one hand and State Government of U P through the S.D.O. on the other. It was further urged and since it "is simply a case of licence and not of allotment of Gaon Sabha land, the provisions of Section 198 (4) of the Act are not attracted and it was particularly mentioned in the objections that the objector has got no concern with the land in dispute so far as the rights and title are concerned which shall always remain vested in the Gaon Sabha. After necessary inquiry the Additional Collector Farrukhabad under his order dated 27-4-78 held that since the opposite-parties who had obtained permission for plantation are the sons of the Pradhan of the village and no permission under Section 28 (C) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act was obtained and since there is no provision under the rules for the execution of such a contract for making such an allotment, the same were cancelled by the Additional Collector. Feeling aggrieved by this order the revisionist preferred revision in the court of the Additional Commissioner which has also been dismissed making way to the present revision under consideration before this court. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record. 4. A photo copy of circular letter no, 5019/14-I of 1976 dated 17-6-76 issued by Sri N. P. Tripathi, Secretary U.P. Shashan to all the District Magistrates U.P, has been filed m support of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The learned counsel for the revisionist during the course of his arguments has pointed out that the observations made by the learned Additional Collector while deciding the case that necessary permission under the provisions of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act was the matter of land settlement being with the son of the Pradhan himself is no correct because the permission was obtained and has been Plea in the court to Additional Commissioner. The necessary permission counsel trees was separately obtained which has also been filed. The necessary permission counsel trees was separately obtained which has also been filed. The learned counsel for the revisionist has very strongly pleaded during the course of his arguments, pressing the point that the facts and circumstance of the case under consideration held to be covered by the provisions of Section i.yo of the Act under Which the proceedings have been drawn up by the learned Additional collector for the simple reason that it has not been a case of also meat of land under that section of the Act for the cancellation of which only the provision of Sections 198 (4) of the Act confer jurisdiction on the Collector. The learned counsel for the revisionist has gone ahead to argue by expressing the view that it is a clear case of contract between the two parties are the revisionist on the one hand and the State Government through the S.D.O. on the other for doing plantation of trees under certain conditions which are part of the agreement and the status of the revisionists cannot be held to be that of the leaseholders or the allots and at the most they can be considered to be licensees if Gaon Sabha. The learned counsel for the revision, it has further argued that Government orders have been made part of the rules and Rule 115 of the U.P.Z.A. and L. R. Rules shall always prevail over the provisions of Gaon Saraaj Manual if the same are in its contravened on and directions issued by the Government always carry force of law and are regarded as rules to be effective equally. Commenting on the observations of the learned Additional Commissioner made in his impugned Judgement and order the learned counsel for the revisionist contended that it is not relevant in the present case that the permission given by the S.D.O. for the plantation of trees is against the provisions of the Gaon Sabha Manual which only provides for the plantation of trees on Gaon Sabha land and according to which the trees are be planted by the Gaon Sabha and private individuals can be given Asami rights over the land in order to look after the growth of the trees so long as the land under plantation remains cultivable. The learned counsel for the revisionists has also contended that it is a contract which is subject to cancellation at the initiation of one of the parties. The learned counsel concluding the arguments referred R.D. 1972 page 292 (B. R.) and urged that the learned Additional Collector Farrukhabad has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in him. 5. The learned for the opposite-party on the other hand has pointed out that the land in question was previously under unauthorised possession oi the father of the revisionist and the family in one way or the other has been attempting to retain the possession of the land for the benefit of their family members. The learned counsel for the opposite-party has further contender that the letter of circular referred to above by the learned counsel for the revisionist in his arguments provides for issuing of a sanad by the Government department concerned on whose land the plantation is to be permitted but in the present case under consideration no sanad has been issued. Commenting on the matter of contract, the learned counsel for the opposite-party has argued that the contract can only be made by the Collector on behalf of the Stats Government under the provisions of Gaon Sabha Manual paras 66 and 67 and any such contract or agreement is to be a registered document. The learned counsel for the opposite-party has further argued that the provisions of Gaon Sabha Manual on the matter under consideration are never inconsistent with the rules on the subject and the Commissioner has very correctly interpreted the same The learned counsel has further urged pressing on the Point that if the proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act were not maintainable as argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist, the revision in the court of the learned Additional Commissioner as well as in this court cannot be held to be maintainable. In the end, the learned counsel for the opposite-party has stated that the order of the learned Collector is administrative one and no revisional interference in called for. 6. In the end, the learned counsel for the opposite-party has stated that the order of the learned Collector is administrative one and no revisional interference in called for. 6. In reply, the learned counsel for the revisionist taking strong exception has argued that there is nothing on record to show anything about the allegations made by the learned counsel for the opposite-party against the father of the revisionists and the complainants are not the aggrieved persons as they are not of preferential category and citing 1984 R.D. page 408, the learned counsel has further argued that the proceedings initiated on the application of a person not aggrieved are themselves not maintainable. Referring to A.I.R. 1978 N.O.C. 247, the learned counsel has contended that in case of a contract it is only the parties to the contract who can challenge it. 7. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsels in my opinion, it is now on a undisputed matter so far as the question of settlement of land is concerned, and there can be no two opinions on the point that the settlement of land with the revisionists cannot be held to be an allotment of Gaon Sabha land under Section 198 of the Act under which the allotment is made for agricultural purposes and certain rights in that land are also conferred on the allottee. From the perusal of circular issued by the Government it appears that a large scale drive was launched for the plantation of trees at the relevant period of time under the policy of the Government with regard to plantation of trees to improve the environmental conditions of the country which have gone from bad to worse in the recent past and every body is worried about the detonating environmental conditions due to large scale felling down of trees m the Forest areas as well as in the plaines particularly after independence. Thus under the general policy of afforestation on large scales the schemes of plantation of trees are implemented from time to time under the campaigns launched through various departments of the Governments and it appears that under such a drive the circular was issued. Thus under the general policy of afforestation on large scales the schemes of plantation of trees are implemented from time to time under the campaigns launched through various departments of the Governments and it appears that under such a drive the circular was issued. Since more and more land is being brought under cultivation in order to increase the production of food grains to meet the challenge of the increasing population the land available for plantation particularly in the planes is decreasing day by day and therefore the policy of the Government has been to allow plantation of trees by private individuals on the vacant land of the Public bodies and of Government department as well as on the lands lying vacant and belonging to the Gaon Sabha and other local bodies. 8. From the perusal of records, it is apparently clear that necessary permission was obtained by the revisionists after a resolution by the L M C was passed to this effect. After completing the formalities a written agreement or a contract has been entered into between the parties including the revisionists on the one hand and the Gaon Sabha and the Sub-Divisional Officer Fatehgarh on behalf of the State Government on the other. From the perusal of this argument, it is clear that the revisionists have given the undertaking in specific words in the agreement that they shall look after and make general supervision over, the trees planted on the land when the trees are grown up they would be entitled to utilise the dry wood and fruits etc for their benefits but they shall never fell down any green trees without the necessary permission of the S D O it has further been made clear in the terms and conditions of this agreement that the revisionists shall have no legal rights or title over the land brought under plantation of trees which shall always remain with the Gaon Sabha and the land shall remain vested in the Gaon Sabha. Thus it is clear that so far as the title and ownership in the land in question are concerned the revisionists have got no concern with the same and under the agreement they have been allowed to plant the trees and to utilise their fruits and flowers as well as dry wood for their benefits so long as the trees remain alive. 9. 9. From the above discussion and the material on record and the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties, I come to the conclusion that the present case cannot be held to be that of allotment of Goan Sabha land to the persons of the Preferential category under the provisions of Section 198 of the Act and the proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act have been absolutely misconceived and cannot be sustained. The remedy for making the agreement undone and getting it Cancelled may lie some-where else on the initiation of one of the parties to the agreement but it never lies in the proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act. The orders passed by the learned Additional Collector Farrukhabad as well as by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad are held clearly to be without jurisdiction and passed in the wrong exercise of jurisdiction vested in them and cannot be allowed to stand. The revision is, therefore, allowed, the impugned orders passed by the Additional Collector Farrukhabad on 27-4-78 and by the Additional Commissioner Allahabad on 29-8-89 are set aside and the proceedings are dropped rejecting the application of the opposite-parties.