JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This reference has been made by the Addl. Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra vide his recommendation dated 22.8.1986 under Section 333-A of U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the order of the Upper Collector, Firozabad, Agra vide his order dated 31.8.1986 passed in a proceeding under Section 198 (4) of U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that the land Management Committee, Jaitpur, Tahsil Firozabad, District Agra passed a resolution to allot the land to the Opp. Parties. The notices were issued by the Collector for the cancellation of the leases. The trial court cancelled the leases of Ram Babu, Mahabir and Smt. Punni Devi belonging to Scheduled Caste and the rest of allotment was held to be valid. Revision was filed against that order by the complainant Bengali Babu. The reference has been made on the ground by the Addl. Commissioner that it was the duty of the allottee to prove the allotment valid. Since the allotment has not been proved to be valid by the allottees, therefore, the leases should be cancelled. 3. Against this recommendation the allottees has made objection. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 4. The allotment was made to three members of the Scheduled Caste belonging to another circle of the village and the rest of the allottees belongs to backward classes. No finding has been recorded by the trial court why the allotment was made to these persons. Whether allotment to the member of the Scheduled Caste of the village has been made already or there is no member of the Scheduled Caste in the village, unless the specified finding on this fact are recorded it is difficult to decide the validity of present allotment, because the land can be allotted to the members of the scheduled caste belonging to the other circle than that of the village. If there are no member of Scheduled caste in the village entitled for allotment, then members of Scheduled caste belonging to another village, can be allotted land by Land Management Committee. 5. The learned Addl. Commissioner has imposed the duty to prove the allotment valid on the allottee. This is not the legal position. First of all it should be proved that the allotment of the allottees are illegal then they had right to rebut it. 5. The learned Addl. Commissioner has imposed the duty to prove the allotment valid on the allottee. This is not the legal position. First of all it should be proved that the allotment of the allottees are illegal then they had right to rebut it. The burden of proof of the allotment valid is not on the allottees. 6. No witnesses were examined before the trial court. The case has been decided by the trial court on affidavits. The trial court is also directed to examine the witnesses who has given the report for cancellation of the lease so that the allottees may have an opportunity to cross-examine them. The parties should be given full opportunity to adduce the evidence afresh. In these circumstances of the case the reference is not accepted as recommended out the trial courts order is set aside and the trial court is directed to decide this proceeding afresh in the light of the observation made above. All the parties will have the opportunity to contest the case including the allottees whose allotment is cancelled.