JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a reference made by Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra dated 20-8-1986 through which he has recommended that the revision filed against the order of the Additional Collector dated 28-2-1986 be allowed and further that the order passed by himself dated 17-7-1986 recalling his order dated 19-6-1986 be also set aside whereby a reference had already been made to this court for allowing the revision against the order of the Additional Collector dated 28-2-1986. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a patta was executed in favour of Baste Ram by the L, M C. by its resolution dated 11-7-1971. This lease was challenged by O. P. Ram Singh and one Shishupal Singh under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 on several grounds including that the pattedar was not the resident of the circle. Subsequently Shishupal Singh withdrew his complaint by filing another application dated 27-11-1975 to that effect. The complaint of Ram Singh continued upon which a report was called for from the Tahsildar by the Additional Collector. On the report of the Tahsildar a notice was issued to the Pattedar revisionist Basteram upon which he filed an objection. The learned Additional Collector held that Baste Ram was not the resident of the circle, hence he cancelled the patta by his order dated 30-8-1978. A revision was filed against that order upon which the case was remanded back to trial court by this Court by its order dated 10-4-1981 directing the Additional Collector to issue a notice in Z. A. form 49 to the Pattedar. Accordingly a notice was issued to the revisionist and he again filed an objection. Again the patta was cancelled by the Additional Collector by his order dated 28-2-1986. The same order has come up before this court on reference by the Additional Commissioner by the basis of the revision filed by Basteram. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the Opposite party argued that Baste ram is not resident of the circle because he is resident-of district Rampur while this land is situated in district Etah and, therefore, he has rightly been held not to belong to this circle and his patta was rightly cancelled. Perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the Opposite party argued that Baste ram is not resident of the circle because he is resident-of district Rampur while this land is situated in district Etah and, therefore, he has rightly been held not to belong to this circle and his patta was rightly cancelled. It was also argued that the revisionist could not prove that proper Munadi and agenda had been issued. 5. As against these arguments the learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the opposite party Ram Singh does not fall within the definition of the aggrieved person and, therefore all these proceedings are misconcieved and must be quashed because at the initiative of Ram Singh the trial court had no jurisdiction to cancel the patta. 6. On perusal of the complaint I find that Ram Singh is resident of village Gaganpur, Majra Bhagipur, Pargana Etah Sakit whereas the land belongs to village Chilasani, Pargana Etah Sakit. In his affidavit also Rai Singh has given his address to belong to village Gaganpur, Majra Bhagipur and not village Chilasani. It is therefore apparent from his own assertion that Ram Singh is not resident of the village the land in dispute is situated. He cannot, therefore, be held to be a person aggrieved and, therefore the complaint filed by him was clearly unauthorised and incompetent. The patta of the revisionist could not be cancelled on the basis of such incompetent complaint. The trial court failed to appreciate this legal situation and without examining the propriety of the complaint cancelled the patta. Such order cannot be held to be proper and legal and cannot be sustained. The record shows that the Additional Collector or the Collector had not taken suo motu action in which event the position could have been different. 7. In view of the above discussion this reference is accepted and the revision is allowed. The order passed by the Additional Collector dated 28-2-1986 is set aside and the patta is maintained.