JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, J.M. - The facts are: for cancellation of lease in favour of Abhai Junior High School and others an application on. 2.9.85 is moved by Parasu Ram under Rule 115-P Z.A. Rules in Collector's Bijnor. The pleading has set forth the contention that Sarnam Dutt Pradhan has established a school in the name of his son Abhai in a building of Panchayat. If has no Managing Committee and is almost a fake institution. In village Barkatpur Khirni is a old primary school with classes upto 5th standard. In consolidation plot No. 295 was earmarked as Playing Ground and plot No. 306 as Primary School. The income from these two plots is utilised for upkeep of Primary School. Further, Pradhan Sarnam Dutt had moved an application to Sub-Divisional Officer for allotment of two plots in the name of Abhai Junior High School, whose Manager he is. On 3.9.84 Sub-Divisional Officer orders allotment. Also complaint is that no agenda was circulated and no resolution of LMC was passed. Immediately after allotment Pradhan Sarnam Dutt transfers a portion of plot No. 306 in favour of Rahmat Ullah 0/3, Jagram 0/4, Shafiq 0/5, who are designing to build their houses. The request to cancel the lease has been prayed for. 2. On 9.10.85, an objection in opposition is filed on behalf of Abhai Junior High School through Pradhan Sarnam Dutt. The objection has set forth the contention that applicant is not an aggrieved person. More, the order of allotment by Sub-Divisional Officer dated 3.9.84 has become final. Also claim is that for eradication of illeteracy, Abhai Vadic Shiksha Samiti was constituted which is a registered body. It has temporary recognition from Basic Education Board. More, the two plots were surely earmarked in consolidation but with Sub-Divisional Officer's permission allotment has been made. That a resolution was sent to Sub-Divisional Officer and protest of applicant Parasu Ram against it was dismissed. The resolution was accepted on 3.9.84. No land has been allotted personally in his name; he has not transferred any portion of plot No. 306 in favour of opposite parties No. 3 to 5. The request to dismiss the application is prayed for. 3. On 9.12.85 an objection in opposition is filed by Samai Singh 0/2, Rahmat Ullah 0/3 Jagram 0/4, Shafiq 0/5, Israr U/6. No land has been allotted personally in his name; he has not transferred any portion of plot No. 306 in favour of opposite parties No. 3 to 5. The request to dismiss the application is prayed for. 3. On 9.12.85 an objection in opposition is filed by Samai Singh 0/2, Rahmat Ullah 0/3 Jagram 0/4, Shafiq 0/5, Israr U/6. They have raised contention and pleas on the same lines as by Pradhan Sarnam Singh, Manager of School. 4. In opposition an affidavit of Kalu, Up Pradhan is filed to show that no resolution of LMC was passed in support of allotment. Also he charges Pradhan Sarnam Dutt has taken money and handed over possession to Rahmat Ullah's over a portion of the land. Affidavits of Mahendra, Shyam Lal, Kali Ram, Sita Ram, all members LMC are filed. They have sworn in that no resolution of LMC was ever passed for allotment. Affidavits of Chattar Singh, Sheesh Ram, are also filed; they are not Members of LMC. In rebuttal affidavits are lodged by Sarnam Dutt, Genda Singh, Pratap Singh, Shafiq, Bhagwant Prasad. Parties, are given chance to lead evidence. On 2.2.90 Additional Collector, Bijnor enters an order cancelling the allotment. 5. Aggrieved Abhai Junior High School Barkatpur files a revision in Commissioner's. On 31.1.91 Additional Commissioner submits a reference to set aside the order of court below. The reference is docketed for a definitive disposal. 6. Heard the counsel for and against the reference. 7. It admits of no doubt that plot No. 296 area 2-1-0 as Play Ground and plot No. 306 area 1-0-0 as Primary School is earmarked in consolidation. Under Section 29-C Ch. Act the land so earmarked in the final consolidation scheme for a public purpose shall vest in the Gaon Sabha and its user cannot be changed. 1971 RD 470 (HC) is positive that Gaon Sabha has no authority in law to divert the use of land ear-marked for a public purpose. The contention of allottee is that land has been alloted for a school and the purpose is public. Is it so? The Pradhan of village is Sarnam Dutt and School is in the name of his son Abhai. The lease is manifestly for supporting private interest in the garb of surviving a public purpose. The Manager of School is Pradhan Sarnam Dutt. It is easy to imagine the Session of LMC. Is it so? The Pradhan of village is Sarnam Dutt and School is in the name of his son Abhai. The lease is manifestly for supporting private interest in the garb of surviving a public purpose. The Manager of School is Pradhan Sarnam Dutt. It is easy to imagine the Session of LMC. Sarnam Dutt is presiding as Chairman to allot land to a school in his son's name; Manager is also Sarnam Dutt. Leaser and lease holder are the same. This is to obtain an interest by Pradhan in allotment. Section 28-C U.P. Panchayat Raj Act will come to play. In such a situation, Chairman is under an obligation to seek prior permission of Collector. This has not been done. The lease is violative of Section 28-C U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. Interest in land is borne out by subsequent conduct. Plot No. 295 is earmarked as a Play Ground Khasra 1393 Fasli shows various crops raised. Who will reap the harvest? Manager Surnam Dutt or son Abhai? 8. By whom the lease has been executed? LMC or by Sub-Divisional Officer. The order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer dated 3.9.84 is revealing. This order is in quite poor taste and is vitiated as Sub-Divisional Officer has assumed several jurisdictions to decide contentious issues an general consideration. For spreading literacy in the village Sub-Divisional Officer has made the allotment himself. So the order will stick under Section 122-C ZA & LR Act. In that case allottee should be one who is listed in sub-section 3 thereof. Abhai Junior High School is not in such a category. More, if Collector has passed the order of cancellation, as here on 2.2.90, revisional remedy is barred under Section 122-C (7) ZA & LR Act. The reference by Additional Commissioner made on 31.1.91 is misconceived. 9. If allotment is taken to be made by LMC, the same is vitiated for not following the accredited procedure under Section 115-N-C. General ZA & LR Act. There is no evidence that there was beat of drum in the village proclaiming the exact location of the site to be allotted, the time, the date and venue of allotment. There is no prior approval of Sub-Divisional Officer and no certificate of allotment in Z.A Form 49-F is filed. 10. The counsel for revisionist has argued that Parasu Ram is not an aggrieved person. I am not impressed by this contention. There is no prior approval of Sub-Divisional Officer and no certificate of allotment in Z.A Form 49-F is filed. 10. The counsel for revisionist has argued that Parasu Ram is not an aggrieved person. I am not impressed by this contention. "............the word" person aggrieved" are of wide import and should not be subjected to a restrictive interpretation. They do not include, of course, a mere busy body who is interfering in things which do not concern him but they do include a person who has genuine grievance because an order has been passed which prejudicially affects his interest." This is quoted with approval by Supreme Court in 1977 RD 15. Parasu Ram is resident of village and is surely interested in preserving the land for public purpose earmarked in consolidation. On behalf of both the parties, affidavits have been filed in support and in rebuttal of allotment procedure. It is important to remember that affidavits are not admissible in evidence in view of 1981 (2) RD 133 and 1964. 11. On a consideration of all, Additional Collector has recorded his opinion that allotment of land earmarked for public purpose is bad in law. This opinion is founded in fact and is not open to inquiry in revision because allotment is by Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 122-C ZA & LR Act. The reference is rejected. Order accordingly.