JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, Member - The facts are: Naresh and others move an application under Rule 115-P Z.A. and L.R. Rules for cancellation of lease in favour of Baliram's: 36 men in the Court of Addl. Collector (Administration) Varanasi on 13.2.73. The case set forth is that they are aggrieved persons; the allotment of lease in favour of Baliram's is bad because there is no resolution of Land Management Committee. That no proclamation was made in village and Sub-Divisional Officer's approval of proposal is violative of prescribed Rules. The request is for cancellation of lease dated 5.8.73 and 6.9.73. The land in allotment is separately noted against the name of each allottee at the foot of their application. 2. A reply to the show cause notice is entered into by Baliram's in their joint objection in opposition dated 24.12.73. Their contention is that they are Harijans, landless and are labourers. The Land Management Committee has made the allotment for construction of their houses. It is also stated that notice was circulated and a meeting of Land Management Committee held; a resolution was passed. More, the proposal has been affirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer by his approval. It is requested that application be dismissed. A separate objection in opposition is filed by Ram Pyare Pandey Pradhan on 24.12.78. Parties were given chance to lead their evidence. Sri S.K.S. Solanki, learned Additional Collector (Executive) Varanasi by his order dated 8.2.80 has cancelled the lease. 3. Allottee Sheo Murat's lodge a revision in Commissioner's. Additional Commissioner by his order dated 15.1.86 has submitted his recommendation to set aside Additional Collector's dated 8.2.80 and to remand the case to him for decision afresh after impleading Land Management Committee. The reference is up here for consideration and decision. 4. Heard the counsel for and against the recommendation in the reference. 5. In a proceeding under Rule 115-P (2) Z.A. and L.R. Rules impleadment of Land Management Committee is necessary. But the proceeding is significantly an enquiry. The Court's duty includes a direction to be given to the applicant to implead Land Management Committee. Revisionist Sheo Murat's duty is also to point out when the proceeding was going apace in lower court to implead Land Management Committee. They do not do so. They cannot now make it a point of grievance. The Court's duty includes a direction to be given to the applicant to implead Land Management Committee. Revisionist Sheo Murat's duty is also to point out when the proceeding was going apace in lower court to implead Land Management Committee. They do not do so. They cannot now make it a point of grievance. Clearly the allottees in their Objection in Opposition also do not make it an issue of significant omission. Even in suits of the status of civil court, the question of non-impleadment of a party is to be raised before the issues are formulated: 1988 RD 248: if no agitation is made, the plea of non-impleadment is taken to have been waived. In 1988 RD 404 - a case of similar proceeding under Section 198 (4) Z.A. and L.R. Act - the failure to ask the applicant to implead Land Management Committee is reason precise enough not to dismiss the application. In 1979 RD 271 non-impleadment of Land Management Committee in First Appeal was held to be of no consequence in relation to a proceeding under Section 198 (4) Z.A. and L.R. Act. Still then, the case was remanded to Additional Commissioner for decision afresh after impleadment. 1975 RD 225 the view taken is that no suit shall be defaulted by reason of mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties and the court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy as regards the rights and interests of parties actually before it. Important thing to note is that the contest is locked between applicant as aggrieved persons and revisionists as allottees. What is still more, Land Management Committee has not turned up to protest its own non-impleadment. The allottees revisionist have taken up its cause so late in the life of this litigation. The counsel for revisionist urges on the basis of 1985 RD 105 that where Collector rejects the application for grant of patta there can be no need of making Land Management Committee a party. But where lease is cancelled the impleadment of Land Management Committee is necessary because the relevant papers in its possession shall be documented in support of allotment. I do not agree. The patta Z.A. Form 49-Ka is issued and is always in personal possession of allottees. The rest of the documents after preparation by Land Management Committee are eventually lodged in Tehsil. I do not agree. The patta Z.A. Form 49-Ka is issued and is always in personal possession of allottees. The rest of the documents after preparation by Land Management Committee are eventually lodged in Tehsil. It was the allottee's duty to have taken certified copies thereof to place them in the judicial file in support of their defence instance. In 1973 R.D. 265 the non-impleadment of Land Management Committee has been held to be a mere irregularity. In this case, Pradhan Ram Pyare Pandey has filed an objection in opposition on 24.12.73. He never protested that Land Management Committee's formal impleadment is more important than his substantial objection in several pages against proposed cancellation of lease. Law is not formal compliance of a specific provision: Rule 115-P (2). It is not fulfilment to stand by a rule abstractly. Law is essentially enmeshed, as it so happens here, with the fortune of the lease as illustrated in it's irregular execution. If lease goes down because it is not vital: is irregular and infected, as documented in Additional Collector's cogent appraisal, no purpose will be served to remand the case, as Additional Commissioner recommends, only to stand by a legal requirement abstractly. Rules do not constitute law. But that is not to say rules are not essential factors in the making of law. If we fail to learn how to manipulate these abstract rules we will become like that physician, described by Mill, "who preferred that patients should die by rule rather than live by it". In this backdrop, the reference is rejected. The cancellation of allotment is proper and shall stand.