JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, Member (Judicial). - Upon a complaint, under the signature of Tahsildar dated 15-11-1978, this proceeding under Section 198 (4) Z.A. & L.R. Act, was proposed as against three : Mst. Budha, a widow, Mst. Mahadei and Kanhya, forwarded by S.D.O. with decisive comment : Except for Mst. Budha the leases are irregular inasmuch as Pardhan has executed a lease to his own mother-in-law and in the bargain he shares and serves interest of two Members of L.M.C. The leases are without prior permission and as such irregular. The lease is dated 26-2-1976. Upon this Additional Collector, through a court assistant, writing on his behalf, a significant taking of cognizance, orders registeration of this application a suo motto action and issue of a show cause notice to opposite parties, allottee's here, for 16-2-1979. The signature, a complicated scribble in deep blue, at the foot of the page, lurks to the eye : dated 23-1-1979. A carbon copy of resolution of L.M.C., a khatoni extract of 1386 fasli are, inter alia, exclosure's, for the action prayed for. 2. The objection by Mst. Mahadei and Mst. Budha, under the ineligible signature of their advocate, dated 27-3-1979, is simple but categorical, their husbands, in compliance of the then Govt. Orders had undergone vescetomy operation, in the family planning drive : the sacrifice that earned them recognition for grant of a lease. More, Smt. Mahadei is scheduled caste who is a landless agriculture labour. Smt. Budha is candid : her husband has only 10 biswa, so less as not to undermine her being eligible. Also S.D.O., in the report he forwards, is opposed to cancellation of her lease : regular as it is. The process of grant, inclusive of Munadi, no less that L.M.C. meeting and preparation of list of landless and the rest was properly gone through, in line as prescribed. The Resolution of L.M.C., crucial in allotment, has secured the S.D.Os eventual permission. Mst. Mahadei it is asserted, has invested enough to make the field fresh and fertile. 3. In the court of first instance, oral evidence recorded, documental admitted, arguments over, Shri A.K.S., Solanki, learned Additional Collector (Executive) Varanasi, by his two pages order has cancelled the leases. 4. The allottee's indulged in hope to secure a reversal of opinion. Smt. Mahadie, by her revision no. 34/42/110 of 1980 : Varanasi and Mst. Budha, by her revision no. In the court of first instance, oral evidence recorded, documental admitted, arguments over, Shri A.K.S., Solanki, learned Additional Collector (Executive) Varanasi, by his two pages order has cancelled the leases. 4. The allottee's indulged in hope to secure a reversal of opinion. Smt. Mahadie, by her revision no. 34/42/110 of 1980 : Varanasi and Mst. Budha, by her revision no. 35/21/109 of 1980 : Varanasi carried the challenge to the court of Commissioner, Varanasi to secure a reversal of opinion. Shri S.P. Singh, learned Additional Commissioner (Administration) Varanasi by his order 28-6-1983 in near 3 pages affirms, the findings reached, the revisions, by a single order, are dismissed. Still, then, Smt. Mahadei and Smt. Buddha, each separately, have lodged a revision in this court. 5. Heard the learned counsel, perused the evidence on record. 6. Learned counsel has opened his submissions on many courts : one by one. I grapple with them. First, the allottee's are landless agricultural labourers. Are they? Smt. Budha in her objection admits her husband owns land admeasuring 10 biswas. Section 198 (4) Explanation (1) Z.A. & L.R. Act refers to a person who or whose spouse holds no land as bhumidhar or Asami. Can we say that of Mst. Budha ? We cannot. So has Basantoo, spouse of Mst. Mahadei, land admeasuring 15 biswas, as documented in the initial report, not shown incorrect. Not landless they are. The concurrent findings of two courts below on factual points, is not open to re-appraisal, in the absence of any perverse exposition and treatment. It is apt to notice, as in elucidation in 1970 R.D. 133 H.C., that women are presumed to be incapable of physically cultivating the land with their own strength. The allotment to them is not just and proper. 7. Secondly, their possession over land prior to crucial date 30-6-1985, amongst others, counsel urged, will validate the allotment. I see, this will not do. The possession becomes important only in the context, not here, when trespassers of certain qualifying class are proceeded against in ejectment proceeding under Section 122(b)(2) Z.A. and L.R. Act. This point fails. 8. Thirdly. S.D.O. enquiry report is beside the point as this has vitally tainted and infected the procedure. Some of cases 1986 R.D. 261, 1986 R.D. 280, 1984 R.D. 418, that I see on my own, has mediated this proposition. This point fails. 8. Thirdly. S.D.O. enquiry report is beside the point as this has vitally tainted and infected the procedure. Some of cases 1986 R.D. 261, 1986 R.D. 280, 1984 R.D. 418, that I see on my own, has mediated this proposition. But as always, a case is an authority for the proposition it decides, and seldom reaches others resting on different perspective. "Every fact is what it is and not another thing : as is so popular. The answer in case here, as always, is an analysis of material facts and objective circumstances. But first it is apt to exclude out of consideration, as insistently urged by revisionist, the enquiry report of Tahsildar, inadmissible that it is : AIR 1990 Alld. 176 : 1987 R.D. 344. So I do. But doing it scarcely forwards the fortunes of Smt. Budha and Smt. Mahadei, allottee's/revisionists. The evidence of Munadi within the meaning of Rule 173 Z.A. and L.R. Rules is not there : 1977 R.D. 43, 1974 R.D. 334. Nor is seen that notice three days in advance of meeting was circulated among the members of L.M.C. A wanton breach of rule 175 Z.A. and L.R. Rules is committed. No list in Z.A. Form 57-A, prescribed under Rule 174, effective from 28-1-1969 was prepared, as is seen, upon whole of the evidence. The lease, there, is illegal : 1978 A.W.C. (R) 34, Rule 174-A also not complied. A copy of resolution dated 26-2-1976 is here : a carbon only. The lease in Z.A. Form 58, in the exclusive control of allottee's, is not filed. More, this is a damaging admission husband Basantoo of allottee Smt. Mahadei and father of allottee Smt. Budha were L.M.C. Members, working in tendem, to help execute the leases. A clear violation of Section. 28-C Panchayat Raj Act is seen. 9. It is true chairman L.M.C. has not been impleaded as party in Collectors court as was compelling in view of Rule 178-A (2) Z.A. and L.R. Rules. But the plea was not raised in the court of first instance. This is not a material irregularity as seen here : 1973 R.D. 265. The head note in 1988 R.D. 248 N.C.........objection to non-impleadment of L.M.C. be taken before issues are framed........is not correct of what has been elucidated in the body of judgment. But the plea was not raised in the court of first instance. This is not a material irregularity as seen here : 1973 R.D. 265. The head note in 1988 R.D. 248 N.C.........objection to non-impleadment of L.M.C. be taken before issues are framed........is not correct of what has been elucidated in the body of judgment. Still, for this alone the re-trial will not be in the larger interest of justice, as leases are so much the more irregular. Law is not merely legal. Remand for impleadment wilt be an exercise in abstraction : a negation of ultimate social end. If L.M.C. were to move the substance that can be made of the point is comprehensible. So is not here. This ends in despair to revisionist. 10. On no other point I was addressed. The revisions are dismissed. This order will govern revision No. 162 of 1983-84.