JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, Member. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 30-11-1984 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, arising out the order dated 9-5-1983 passed by Additional Collector, Faizabad in respect of land situate in village Hajanpur, pergana Bidhar, tehsil Tanda, district Faizabad. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Bhagelu son of Muneshwar moved an application before the Tehsildar Tanda on 30-6-1980 with the prayer that put the applicant into possession over the land in dispute which was allotted to him by the L.M.C. The Tehsildar sent this application to the Supervisor Kanungo for enquiry and report. On 28-7-1980, one Ram Pratap son of Ram Anuj (hereinafter referred to as the revisionist) moved an application before the S.D.O. with the allegation that plot no. 62 was wrongly allotted to Bhagelu. His contention was that the land which is in the shape of a grove belongs to him and that it was in the shape of a grove prior to abolition of Zamindari. This complaint was sent to the Tehsildar for enquiry and report. In compliance of the S.D.O.'s order the enquiry report dated 10-1-1981 (paper A-9/13) was submitted to the S.D.O. It appears from the report that plot no. 62 area 0.719 situate in village Hajanpur was allotted to Bhagelu who was recorded as sirdar in 1388 F. According to khatauni, the total area of the plot is 0.0.15. But according to the map spot enquiry, the area comes to about 0-12-8. Of this area, 0-9-12 is covered by old trees of two Mahua 4 Mango, 2 Imli, aged about 100 years, one neem, 5 sihara, 3 Tendua aged about 40 years. These trees where claimed by the complainant Ram Pratap. One Raghubir son of Shiv Narian was reported to be in illegal possession of 0-2-16. The enquiry officer was of the view that if Raghubir was evicted from 0-2-16. The enquiry officer was of the view that if Raghubir was evicted from 0-2-16, it would not be possible to put Bhagelu in possession of 0-4-16 because of the standing trees. It was, therefore, proposed that Raghubir could be ejected and patta in respect of 0-4-16 granted in favour of Bhagelu be cancelled. 3. This report was forwarded by the S.D.O. to the Collector. It was, therefore, proposed that Raghubir could be ejected and patta in respect of 0-4-16 granted in favour of Bhagelu be cancelled. 3. This report was forwarded by the S.D.O. to the Collector. It appears that the proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act were initiated on this report. After enquiry into the allegations, the learned Additional Collector came to the conclusion that the allotment made in favour of Bhagelu was according to rules and the L.M.C. which was fully competent to allot the land because the land recorded as banjar belongs to the Gaon Sabha. He has also observed that the land in dispute could not be construed as a grove-land. He has also found that Ram Pratap has not been able to prove his possession and ownership over the plot in dispute. The learned trial court's findings were upheld in revision by the learned Additional Commissioner. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist. None appeared for the opposite party Bhagelu. Sri S.D. Pathak, learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the land being grove having trees more than 100 years old, could not be allotted. His second contention is that the allottee himself has admitted that the land has been used as abadi and sahan and so, no abadi and sahan could be allotted by the L.M.C. Another contention made by the learned Counsel is that the courts below have not considered oral evidence and that no allotment of land could be made if it is not vacant. He has further argued that the courts below have not looked into the aspect of legality or illegality of the allotment. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me and have also perused the record. The type of land which can be allotted by the L.M.C. are mentioned in Section 195 of the Act. The allotment can be made of any land where (a) the land is vacant, (b) the land is vested in the Gaon Sabha under Section 170, or (c) the land has come into the possession of the L.M.C. under Section 194 or any other provision of this Act. The first requirement for allotment is that the land should be vacant. In the present case, 17 trees are reported to be existing on the land in dispute. The first requirement for allotment is that the land should be vacant. In the present case, 17 trees are reported to be existing on the land in dispute. How, the question is whether with the existence of these trees, the land could be construed as a grove land. Under Section 3 (6) of the U.P. Tenancy Act, the grove land has been defined as a piece of land in a mohal or mohals having trees planted there on in such numbers that they preclude or when fully grown will preclude the land or considerable portion thereof from being used primarily for any other purposes and the trees on such land constitute a grove. 6. Now, the question is whether a grove land can be allotted. Section 195 of the Act provides that the L.M.C. shall have no right to admit any person to any land mentioned under Section 132. Section 138 (c) bars accrual of any bhumidhari rights on land declared by the State Government by notification in official Gazette to be intended or set apart for Tangya plantation or grove land of the Gaon Sabha. There is nothing on the record to show that the land in dispute has been declared by the State Government by notification the in official Gazette as grove land. When it is recorded as Banjar, the L.M.C., therefore, notwithstanding the existence of some trees howsoever old, on the land, was well within its right to admit Bhagelu to the land in dispute. It is not conclusively proved that the revisionist Ram Pratap is the owner of the land in dispute. If he has any right or interest he may move to a competent court for the declaration of his right. But so long as the land is recorded as Gaon Sabha property, the L.M.C. is fully competent to allot it to the eligible persons. 7. The contention of the learned Counsel that the courts below have not looked into the allegations that the allotment was irregular does not carry any weight. It is quite clear from the revisionists application moved before the S.D.O. on 28-7-1980 (paper no. A-3/7) that his only allegation was that the allotment was irregular because the land belongs to him. The learned trial Court has observed in its judgment that the allotment was made by a majority resolution and there were no sufficient ground for cancelling the lease. A-3/7) that his only allegation was that the allotment was irregular because the land belongs to him. The learned trial Court has observed in its judgment that the allotment was made by a majority resolution and there were no sufficient ground for cancelling the lease. I do not find any pitfall in the findings of the courts below. 8. As regards the vacancy of the laud, it is no doubt vacant because it is not in occupation of any person with legal authority. It is unfortunate that the opposite party Bhagelu was admitted to the land in dispute and has not been put into possession. It is now for the Collector to invoke Section 198-A of the Act and put the allottee to possession over the land in dispute. He shall be failing in his duty if prompt action in cases like this is not taken. 9. In the result, this revision petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Collector, Faizabad.