JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, Member - This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.7.89 passed by the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in revision No. 355 of 1985-86, arising out of an order dated 30.7.86 passed by the Additional Collector, Lalitpur, in proceedings u/s 198 (4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 2. The facts of the case are that Gajju Ram, Balak Das Purohit made a complaint to the Collector Lalitpur on 26.9.79 alleging that the plot No. 692/2 area 2.70 situate in village Jiron was illegally allotted to Hari Shanker. The allegations were looked into by the tehsildar and the S.D.O. on whose report proceedings u/s 198 (4) of the Act were initiated. A notice was issued to the allottee Hari Shanker requiring him to show cause as to why the allotment should not be cancelled because the allotment was not made according to rules; that he did not come in the category of landless agricultural labourer; that he had already held 20.24 acres land before the allotment and that the interest of the real landless agricultural labourers was ignored. In response to the notice, the allottee denied the allegations stating that he was sirdar under CLRD Scheme and that he was admitted to the land by the L.M.C. as his father was a recorded sirdar in possession under the C.L.R.D. Scheme. The learned Additional Collector did not accept the explanation and cancelled the allotment by means of his order dated 30.7.86. 3. Aggrieved by this order, the allottee preferred a revision before the Divisional Commissioner. The learned Commissioner did not find any force in the contention that the revisionist was not admitted to the land by the L.M.C. He has also found that the land in dispute is recorded as Banjar in the year 1366-69F. On the basis of this document, Sri Ram s/o Ram Sewak was recorded in Ziman - 9 (2) as sirdar under the orders of the S.D.O. dated 21.12.69. The learned Commissioner has further observed that the statement of the revisionist is contradictory because he has himself admitted in his objection in para 1 of the objection that the allotment was made after observing all the necessary formalities. She has also referred to his statement given before the trial court wherein he has admitted that he was a landless agricultural labourer at the time of the allotment. She has also referred to his statement given before the trial court wherein he has admitted that he was a landless agricultural labourer at the time of the allotment. She has dismissed the revision holding that the revisionist was not eligible to any allotment as he had already held 20.24 acres land before the allotment. 4. I have heard Sri A.S. Rai, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned D.G.C. (R.) The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that no patta was granted to the father of the revisionist who was sirdar under the CLRD Scheme. His second contention is that the allotment was made in 1960 and the notice was issued in 1980 against Sri Ram who was dead. Subsequently, a notice was also received by the revisionist. The notice is, therefore, hit by section 198 (6) of the Act and the proceedings stand vitiated because the notice was signed by the peshkar. Another argument advanced by him is that it is not proved from the evidence on record that the patta land was inherited by the revisionist from his father and that the proceedings are bad in the absence of the alleged patta. 5. The learned D.G.C. (R) has contended that this revision is not maintainable as Gajju and Balak Das are not impleaded as parties. His second submission is that there is no error in the orders of the courts below who have given concurrent findings. 6. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced before me and have also perused the records. The first question for consideration is whether any lease was granted to Sri Ram s/o Ram Sewak. The learned Commissioner has observed in her judgment that the disputed land has been shown in CLRD Form-8 and the land is shown as admitted to Sri Ram s/o Ram Sewak on 16.9.69 by the L.M.C. The lease is shown to have been verified on 26.11.59. No such form is on the record. The disputed land is 692/2 area 2.70 acres. This plot is shown as Banjar in the Khatauni 1366-68. There is an endorsement in this khatauni to the effect that under the orders of the S.D.O. dated 11.12.59 this plot is recorded according to Serial No. 68 of the map of CLRD Scheme No. 8, as sirdari of Sri Ram s/o Ram Sewak with a rent of Rs. 2.70. This plot is shown as Banjar in the Khatauni 1366-68. There is an endorsement in this khatauni to the effect that under the orders of the S.D.O. dated 11.12.59 this plot is recorded according to Serial No. 68 of the map of CLRD Scheme No. 8, as sirdari of Sri Ram s/o Ram Sewak with a rent of Rs. 2.70. Except this entry, there is no resolution or any other document relating to the alleged allotment. In the absence of a resolution followed by necessary formalities with regard to the allotment, no presumption, on the basis of the aforesaid entry, ran be drawn that the land in question was allotted to the revisionist. If the Collector proceeds to make an enquiry u/s 198 (4) of the Act, he has to see whether the land belongs to the Gaon Sabha; whether any resolution with regard to the allotment in favour of a particular person has been passed by the L.M.C. observing all necessary formalities and whether the requisite approval of the S.D.O. was sought. The L.M.C. (with the previous approval of the Assistant Collector Incharge of the sub-division) has a right to admit any person as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights to any land, other than the land being in any of the classes mentioned in Section 132, where (a) the land is vacant land (b) the land is vested in the Gaon Sabha u/s 117, or (c) the land has come into the possession of the L.M.C. u/s 194 or under any other provisions of the Art. 7. The land held by a person by any other manner except an allotment u/s 195 of the Act is not subject to an enquiry u/s 198 (4). In the instant case, the allottee Sri Ram was given land under the CLRD scheme and was recorded as such as Sirdar under the orders of the S.D.O. Until it is proved to the hilt that he was admitted to the land u/s 195 against law and rules on the subject, he cannot be ejected u/s 198 (4) of the Act. His mere admission in his objection that his father was admitted to the land according to rules, is not sufficient to trust him. He can be ejected from the land in dispute under the normal process of law by a regular suit of the Gaon Sabha. 8. His mere admission in his objection that his father was admitted to the land according to rules, is not sufficient to trust him. He can be ejected from the land in dispute under the normal process of law by a regular suit of the Gaon Sabha. 8. In the result, this revision petition is allowed and the orders of the S.D.O. and the learned Commissioner dated 50.7.86 and 17.7.89 are set aside.