JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - These two references has ben made by Additional Commissioner, Agra dated 6.8.1981 under Section 333-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. In brief the facts of these cases are that the revisionist were allotted land for agricultural purposes by the Land Management Committee Dihuli, Paragana Mustafabad, Tahsil Jasrana, District Mainpur, Badan Singh challenged that allotment on many grounds. The trial court on 20.5.1980 cancelled the leases. Revision were filed before the Commissioner, who recommended that all proceedings for cancellation of allotment was done before the Sub-Divisional Officer, hence the Collector cannot rely on the proceeding recorded before the Sub-Divisional Officer, therefore, the Collector has failed to exercise his jurisdiction as vested under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, hence the revisions should be allowed and should be directed to conduct whole proceeding under Section 198(4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 before him. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist. No one is present from the side of the opposite parties. Perused the record. 4. All the evidence which was recorded in the proceeding was done before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Additional Collector has not recorded any evidence before him, therefore, the proceeding conducted by the trial Court is materially defective. Hence, I agree with the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner and set aside the order of the trial court dated 20.2.1980 and direct him to redecide the proceeding after recording evidence of the parties before him. The parties will appear there on 25.11.1992, before that date file should be sent. This order shall govern Reference No. 371 and 372 of 1981-82/Mainpur.