JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, Member - The facts that bear out controversy are: for cancellation of lease of Ram Rekha and shobhnath an application is moved by Lal Mani and others: 5 men: under Section 115-P Z.A. & L.R. Rules in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Gyanpur, District Varanasi on 26.9.75. Their case is that in neighbourhood of their houses plot Nos. 105 and 106 are situate: parti land left so there far their convenience in consolidation. Applicant Ram Sagar has 4 mango trees, a bamboo clum over it. It is also claimed that they had their Charni, Charkhi, Katakal, Barn and land is in their daily use. The allottees Ram Rekha's have house in plot No. 172 and are tenant of one Bigha land. They learned of allotment on 19.9.75. Their grievance is that allotment is so much irregular and no Land Management Committee meeting was ever held, no agenda circulated, no beating of drum done. That allottees are not landless; are not eligible persons for a house site. The relief for cancellation of lease has been prayed for. 2. An objection in opposition is lodged by allottees Ram Rekha and Shobhnath, sons of Satya Narain in Tahsildar's on 3.5.76. Their contention is that they are landless; have no land and their old house cannot accommodate increasing members of family. So Land Management Committee allotted by a resolution, backed by Munadi agenda and auction, with a premium. That they have built a house and are living therein. They deny applicants have anything to do whatsoever with the land. They are locked in animocities because of litigation which has not as yet abated. It is conceded land is usar and is so entered as Abadi in consolidation. That the application is barred by principle of estoppel and acquiescence. It is urged that application be dismissed as untenable. 3. Additional Collector has sent for an enquiry report from Tehsildar. Additional Collector (Executive) by his order dated 5.7.78 has dismissed the application of Lal Mani on basis of Tahsildar's enquiry report. The upshot is that lease is held supportable and regular. 4. Applicants Lal Mini's lodges a revision in Commissioner's. Additional Commissioner by his order dated 21.9.79 has dismissed the same. In this court the applicants in revision has petitioned. 5. Heard the counsel for Lal Mani and perused the record. No representation is for Ram Rekha. 6. The upshot is that lease is held supportable and regular. 4. Applicants Lal Mini's lodges a revision in Commissioner's. Additional Commissioner by his order dated 21.9.79 has dismissed the same. In this court the applicants in revision has petitioned. 5. Heard the counsel for Lal Mani and perused the record. No representation is for Ram Rekha. 6. The order of Additional Collector dated 5.7.78 shows that he has no levlier apprehension of his liability towards an enquiry under Rule 115-P Z.A. L.R. Rules. He has himself to conduct the enquiry. The jurisdictional engagement is his alone. Time out of number this enquiry be made by Collector himself; 1986 RD 238, 1985 RJ 372, 1981 AWC (Revenue) 5, 1986 RD 295 and rest of precedents Still, then, Additional Collector is not responsive to summons of his duty to make enquiry and record essential findings on each requirement of a regular lease. He was content to throw away application by a 6 line order on the order sheet itself grounded on Tahsildar's report. Tahsildar's report is clearly inadmissible in evidence: 1990 (1) C.R.C. 541 and AIR 1976 Allahabad 121. The report is not a public document under Section 74 and 35 Indian Evidence Act. The cavalier treatment to the applicant's case by Additional Collector is a cause of deep anguish. 7. Applicants came to Commissioner's Additional Commissioner's exposition and treatment is too so much less reassuring. He should have examined whether in making the allotment Land Management Committee had followed or not the prescribed procedure detailed under Rules 115-N-C General. The counsel for the revisionist urged that Land Management Committee is a necessary party and had not been impleaded. It is so plain from Rule 115-P (2) ZA: LR Rules. Applicant Lal Mani did not implead. Allottees Ram Rekha's did not raise this point in lower court as was their obligation. Additional Collector did not read Rule 115-P Z.A.L.R. Rules in his slop shot handling of enquiry. An omission to which all have contributed looms large in counsel's argument. I agree with his submission that case should be sent down for re-hearing to Collector in accordance with law. 8. On a consideration of forgoing, the revision is allowed; the order of courts below are set aside. An omission to which all have contributed looms large in counsel's argument. I agree with his submission that case should be sent down for re-hearing to Collector in accordance with law. 8. On a consideration of forgoing, the revision is allowed; the order of courts below are set aside. The file is sent down to Collector to undertake an enquiry afresh and record separate clear findings about requirement of a regular lease as prescribed under Rule 115-N of Z.A.L.R. Rules.