JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - These three connected references have been made by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra vide its order dated 21.12.87 whereby he has recommended that the order passed by Additional Collector, Etah dated 31.12.83 be set aside and the case be remanded back to the trial court for redecision. 2. On the report of the Lekhpal that the pattas in these cases were made without observing proper procedure, the Addl. Collector drew suo-motu proceeding and issued notices to the pattedars and the L.M.C. The main defence in these cases is that the disputed land is no longer a land within the meaning of Section 3 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act because a declaration of abadi has been issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer prior to these proceedings and so the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act are not applicable to the same and accordingly the proceeding for cancellation of patta are unlawful and stand vitiated. 3. The trial court rejected the objection and cancelled the pattas. 4. On revision the learned Additional Commissioner found that the evidence in these cases was deficient and, therefore, he recommended that the cases be sent back for taking further evidence and for fresh decision. 5. Feeling aggrieved against this order revisionists have come up before this court in revision. 6. Heard the learned counsels for both the parties. Perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the recommendation for remand is against law as the cases, could be decided on the material available on record. It was argued that the purpose of remand is not to fill up the lacuna of any party and so there is no necessity remand of these cases and the revision should be decided finally by this court. It was further argued that the land has been declared abadi under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and, therefore, this land has gone beyond the purview of Z.A. and L.R. Act. Reliance was placed on a ruling reported in Raghubir Singh v. Settlement Officer Consolidation 1966 R.D. Page 203. 8. Learned D.G.C. (R) supported the judgment of the Additional Commissioner. 9. In my opinion the arguments advanced on behalf of the revisionist are not without force. Reliance was placed on a ruling reported in Raghubir Singh v. Settlement Officer Consolidation 1966 R.D. Page 203. 8. Learned D.G.C. (R) supported the judgment of the Additional Commissioner. 9. In my opinion the arguments advanced on behalf of the revisionist are not without force. The recommendation for remand made by the learned Additional Commissioner is not valid because both the parties have exhausted their evidence before the trial court, and therefore, the revision have to be decided on the basis of the evidence whatever it is available on record. There is no question of remanding the case to the trial court for taking fresh evidence because that would obviously amount to filling up the I lacuna of the parties. 10. The record shows that the pattedars had deposited 10 times of rent and had obtained bhumidhari sanad and a declaration of abadi site had also been made by the Sub-Divisional Officer vide his order dated 22.7.72. In 1966 R.D. page 203 quoted above the Hon'ble High Court made the following observations: "Once the position is arrived at that, there was a declaration, made under Section 143 of the Act, after due enquiry, then by virtue of sub-section (2) thereof the conclusion is inescapable that the provisions of the whole of Chapter VIII other than of Section 143 would become wholly inapplicable. Section 137-A and Section 198 both fall within this Chapter and, therefore, no authority will, after a declaration has been made under Section 143 of the Act, have any jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 198 (2)." 11. The aforesaid observation made by his Lordship leaves, no room for doubt that after a declaration under Section 143 of the Act has been made the provisions of whole of Chapter 0 of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 including Section 198 of the Act become wholly inapplicable and therefore, a revenue court would have no jurisdiction to entertain a matter under Section 198. In view of the principle so laid down these proceedings for the cancellation of patta are also unentertainable and misconceived by these courts and, therefore, the orders of the courts below about the cancellation of the pattas cannot be maintained. 12. In the result these revisions are allowed and the impugned order passed by both the courts below are set aside. This order shall govern Reference Nos. 124, 130 and 143 of 1984-85/Etah.