JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This revision has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the order of the Additional Commissioner Gorakhpur Division, gorakhpur dated 25-7-1978 against the order of the Collector, Azamgarh dated 10-2-1975 passed in a proceeding under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. The allotment of the revisionist was challenged on the ground that his father is a member of the Land Management Committee. There is about 29.75 acres of land in the name of his father but he has been allotted the land in the proceeding dated 9-9-1970 of the Land Management Committee. The trial court after taking the evidence of the parties cancelled the leases. Ram Asrey filed the revision before the Additional Commissioner who has also dismissed the revision by h is impugned order, hence this revision has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the State. Perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the application was time-barred, therefore, all the proceedings of the trial court are illegal. He also argued that Ram Asrey is member of scheduled caste, therefore, he has acquired right under Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 in view of the possession of Ram Asrey continuously since the allotment. 5. The trial court has dismissed the revision on the ground that the member of scheduled caste persons belonging to landless agricultural labourer category were present in the village. If no land was available then lots should have been drawn amongst the same category of the person. No explanation has been shown as to how much land was in the name of the father of the revisionist. In the judgment it is shown to be that the allottee's father had about 29 acres of land then it was essential to prove how Ram Asrey was landless agricultural labourer. Mere having no land is not a ground for the allotment of the land. The allottee should be landless agricultural labourer. 6 In these circumstances of the case I do not consider it to allow the revision and interfere in the order of the trial court. If any right and title the revisionist had acquired by operation of law he can establish it independently in the court.