JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, M. - This reference has been made by Addl. Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur dated 2.6.1983 against order of the Collector, Deoria dated 6.10.1981 passed in a proceeding 92 under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. The lease of the revisionist was challenged by the Opp. Parties on the ground that allotted land is Khalihan and the allotment is irregular, it should be cancelled. It was objected by the revisionist but the trial court vide its order dated 6.10.1981 cancelled the lease of plot No. 86 area 3 decimal. Revision was filed against that order which has been recommended to be accepted here that the Land Management Committee is not impleaded as party. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 4. The first sentence of the order of the collector shows that he has passed the order in a proceeding under Sections 198(4)/122-C (6) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, hence the proceeding which the trial court had conducted is materially defective and illegal. In a proceeding under Section 198 the order of the Collector is final subject to the revisional jurisdiction but in a proceeding under Section 122-C (6) the order of the Collector is final and it cannot be challenged in any revisional jurisdiction. Besides this the Land Management Committee has not been properly arrayed as party. Therefore, I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the Opp. Party argued that the disputed land is Khalihan. Hence the allotment cancelled by the trial court is perfectly justified. 5. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Opp. Parties because the order passed by the counsel court is materially defective and illegal. The trial court first of all to decide whether the allotment was for abadi purposes or not. If the allotment was for abadi purpose cancellation will be done under Section 122-C (6) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 and against that order of the Collector no revisional interference is provided under the law. If the allotment was for agricultural purpose then he should vitiate proceeding under Section 198(4) of U.P. Act no. 1 of 1951 against which revisional jurisdiction will lie. If the allotment was for agricultural purpose then he should vitiate proceeding under Section 198(4) of U.P. Act no. 1 of 1951 against which revisional jurisdiction will lie. Therefore, the trial court is also directed that if the allotment was for agricultural purpose then a show cause notice under Section 198 (5) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 be issued to the allottees and the Land Management Committee. The reference is accepted with this modification of the recommendation.