JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, Member - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.5.80 passed by Sri Misri Lal, Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi in revision No. 350/32 of 1985-86 arising out of the case No. 431 of 1982-83 u/s 198 (4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. 2. The facts of the case are that the Additional Collector Lalitpur initiated suo-moto proceedings u/s 198 (4) of the Act for the cancellation of the lease of plot No. 299/9 area 4.00 acres situate in village Mairati Kalan executed in favour of the allottee Jankoo (hereinafter referred to as the revisionist) on 21.11.74 on the ground that his family held 11.28 acres land before the execution of the patta. With the allotment of the land the total holding together with the land allotted to him comes to 15.28 acres which was in excess of the prescribed limit. In response to the notice, the revisionist dented the allegations contending that the allotment was made according to rules; that he was a landless agricultural labourer; that he lives separately from his father and brother; that he has no concern with the land held by his father. The learned Additional Collector cancelled the allotment on 2.8.86 holding that the allottee was entitled to 5.55 acres land out of 11.10 acres held by his father. A revision filed against this order was also dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner on 19.5.88. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned DGC (R). Sri D.N. Gupta, the learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the father of the revisionist is still alive and there cannot be any presumption about the share likely to be held by the revisionist. His second submission is that the entire proceedings stand vitiated because the show cause notice was not signed by the Collector. Reliance has been placed on 1990 RD 70 and 1991 RD 56. The learned DGC (R) has contended that the courts below have given a concurrent finding of fact which calls for no interference. 4. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced before me and have also perused the record. Reliance has been placed on 1990 RD 70 and 1991 RD 56. The learned DGC (R) has contended that the courts below have given a concurrent finding of fact which calls for no interference. 4. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced before me and have also perused the record. When the Collector proceeds u/s 198 (4) of the Act for the cancellation of an allotment on the ground that the allottee's father held sufficient land and hence the allottee is not a landless agricultural labourer, he has to enquire firstly, whether the allottee is a major, secondly, whether he lives separately from his father and whether he is a landless agricultural labourer residing in the circle in which the land is situated. A definite finding of fact is necessary on these issues. The age of the allottee can be proved from the birth register and oral evidence. Whether he lives alone or along will his father can be proved from the Kutumb register, electoral roll and oral evidence. Oral evidence will be sufficient to prove if he is a landless agricultural labourer. 5. Unfortunately, the collectors despite a series of rulings on various questions of law and facts, fail to conduct the enquiry according to law. Even the notice which forms the basis of an enquiry is not signed by them. This results in allowance of appeal or revision even by a person not at all eligible for the allotment, and loss of public property and denial of share in the cake to the real landless agricultural labourers living below the poverty line. That is what appears to have been done in the instant case also. The notice has not been signed by the Collector. Definition of family has not been taken into account. The legal question whether the father's land can be added with the land allotted to the revisionist has also not been considered. No finding on the issue whether the allottee is a landless agricultural labourer living in the circle has been given. No finding on the question of the provisions laid down under Rules 173 to 176 of the Rules has been given. The patta has been cancelled only on the ground that the allottee is entitled to share in the land held by his father. No finding on the question of the provisions laid down under Rules 173 to 176 of the Rules has been given. The patta has been cancelled only on the ground that the allottee is entitled to share in the land held by his father. In the instant case, the notice shows that the provisions laid down under Rules 173 to 176 have not been complied with. The learned trial court has failed to address itself on these points. The learned Additional Commissioner has mechanically accepted the findings only on the question of limit prescribed for the allotment. Both the courts below have committed manifest error in law in presuming the share of the allottee in the land held by his father. It is well established that the land held by the father cannot be clubbed with the land allotted to the major son living separately from his father. In the instant case, the revisionist has denied to have been living with his father for the last 20 years. He has four sons and a daughter. Both the courts below have neither accepted this testimony nor rejected it with cogent reasons. Non appreciation of evidence on a vital point of fact is a serious illegality. 6. In view of the foregoing discussions, this revision is allowed and the orders passed by the courts below are set aside.