JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This reference has been referred under Section 333-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 vide the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur dated 28-7-1983. 2. The land management Committee allotted land for agricultural purposes to the respondents. One Mata Prasad filed application under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 for the cancellation of the leases on the ground that he has not been allotted the land as he is landless agriculture labourer. The trial court after taking the evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that fat her of Mata Prasad had died who had 24-2-11 land in his name the applicant alongwith his four brothers are now entitled to hold that land, therefore, they are not landless agricultural labourers, hence he is not an aggrieved person, therefore, the proceeding for cancellation of the leases was dropped. Revision was filed by Mata Prasad against that order of the trial court. The learned Additional Commissioner has referred the revision with this recommendation that the trial court has not determined the validity of the allotment made by the Land Management Committee, hence he recommended that the revision should be allowed and the order of the trial court should be set aside. The learned appellate court fixed this case in this court that the parties should appear on 28-11-1983. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the opposite parties. No one is present for the revisionist. Although the learned counsel for the revisionist was present in the present in the previous date. Perused the record. 4. The order of the trial court can be set aside only if it is found that it is an order against the revision under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. He has examined the main aspect whether the applicant was aggrieved person or not whatever the finding the trial court had recorded have become final and no revisional court can challenge and upset it, therefore the order passed on that account of the trial court is perfectly valid and there is no illegality in its order. If the trial court has not looked into the validity of the allotment and given a finding on it, it is a just omission. Unless anything otherwise found to be contrary the order of the trial court cannot be set aside. If the trial court has not looked into the validity of the allotment and given a finding on it, it is a just omission. Unless anything otherwise found to be contrary the order of the trial court cannot be set aside. The referring court has not recommended on what ground on which the validity of the allotment was to be examined mere referring that the validity of the allotment was not examined is not sufficient ground for find any ground in this reference, hence it is not accepted and is rejected.