JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, Member - These references arise out of order dated 27.2.1987 passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi in proceedings u/Sec. 198 (4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 2. The facts of the case are that Bhagirath s/o Sadhu moved an application before the Collector on 26.12.1986 alleging that the allotment made in favour of Chauda, Makundi, Matadin, Chandu, Guvirdi, Parsadi, Mahipat, Suresh and Chandu,was against rules as no procedure with regard to proclamation and preparation of list of the landless agricultural labourer was followed. The complainant Bhagirath is a landless agricultural labourer and a Harijan whereas the allottees were not at all eligible to the allotment. It was also alleged that Chauda had sufficient land, Mukundi was employed in P.W.D., Matadin had already held land, Chandu, Guvindi and Prasadi were not Harijans and their brother Ram Das was a member of the LMC. 3. On receipt of the aforesaid complaint, a report was called for from the tehsildar. On receipt of the Tehsildar's report, notices were issued to the allotted who denied the allegations. They claimed that the allotments were made according to rules; that they were landless agricultural labourers and the proclamation was made by beat of drum and that the applicant was not an aggrieved person. The learned Addl. Collector upheld the allotment made in favour of Chandu, Mukundi and Matadin and cancelled the allotments in respect of the remaining allottees. Two revision petitions were preferred against the order of the Collector before the Divisional Commissioner. The learned Addl. Commissioner has found that the learned Addl. Collector has erred in law in cancelling the leases on the ground that the allottee's father had already held land. He has relied on 1982 R.D. 216, 1984 R.D. 274, 1984 R.D. 408, R.D. 162, 1986 R.D. 441. 4. It is well settled that the land held by the father will not be clubbed with the land allotted to the son. But this Will hold good only when the following three conditions are met: firstly the allottee is a major; secondly, he lives separately from his father and lastly, he is a landless agricultural labourer living in the circle in which the land is situated. 5. The learned Addl. Collector has found that no evidence kutumb register etc. were produced to prove that the revisionist lived separately from their father. 5. The learned Addl. Collector has found that no evidence kutumb register etc. were produced to prove that the revisionist lived separately from their father. This was confirmed by the lekhpal who has stated that cultivation, of the revisionist and their father is joint. Where an allottee comes forward with the specific plea that he lives separately from his father, the onus of proving it lies squarely on him. The learned Addl. Commissioner has simply referred a number of rulings wherein it has been held that the land held by the father will not be clubbed with the land allotted to his son. But for the application of the ruling, it is to be proved that the allottee is a major, lives separately from his father and that he is a landless agricultural labourer living in the circle. The learned Addl. Commissioner has not touched these points. I am, therefore, not inclined to accept the reference. 6. In the result, rejecting the reference and recommendation, I remand the cases back to the learned Addl. Commissioner for giving specific finding in the light of the observations made above. The parties are directed to appear before the court below on 28.2.92. 7. This order shall govern reference Nos. 59 and 60 of 1987-88/Jhansi.