JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This reference has been referred under Section 333-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 by the additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra dated 5-7-1988. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that Opposite-party Pratham Singh was allotted plot No. 1129 area 0-6-0 of Village Manai, Pergana Akrabad, Tahsil Sikandrarao district Aligarh for agriculture. Against that allotment Kailash filed application under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The trial court after taking evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that the allotment was validly made by Land Management Committee, hence he dismissed the proceeding under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 by his order dated 31-12-1987. Against that revision was filed by Kailash before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner has recommended that the burden was on the allottee to prove that the allotment was validly made in his favour by the Land management Committee. Since this burden has not been discharged by the allottee, therefore his leases should be cancelled. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. The trial court has given a categorical finding that the allotment was valid, hence this finding cannot be reversed by the revisional court. The learned counsel for the State as well as opposite party both agree on this point that duty to prove that the allotment was irregular and invalid lie on the complainant and not the allottee, hence the recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner is not sustainable. 5. I fully agree with this view of the learned counsels of both the parties. If the analogy of the Additional Commissioner is taken then all the allotments are illegal unless they are proved otherwise. This is not the fact and the legal position regarding the allotment of the land. The presumption are that all the allotments are valid unless they are proved otherwise. Therefore, this reference is rejected and the order of the trial court is upheld.