JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This reference has been made by the Additional Commissioner Moradabad Division, Moradabad, dated 21.3.1990 against order of Additional Collector, Moradabad dated 15.2.1989 in a proceeding under Section 198(4) of case No. 82 of 1988-89. 2. The plot in dispute was reserved in consolidation as land for earth for the community of Komhar of the village. That land was allotted to the revisionist Dhannu Singh. An application was moved before the Collector by Sri Kaushal Pal and Ram Kishan Singh. The learned Additional Collector issued the notice to the allottee and cancelled the lease. Against that revision was filed before the Additional Commissioner who recommended to set aside the order of the trial court and to remand the case to issue a notice afresh. 3. Heard the learned counself or the opposite party. No one is present for the revisionist. Perused the record. 4. The main ground for setting aside of the trial court's order is in the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner is that notice was not signed and plot number was not mentioned in the notice issued to the allottees under Section 198(5) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. On this ground along he recommended to set aside the order and to remand the case for fresh notice and trial. 5. The allotted land was reserved for public purposes during the consolidation. When the notice was issued to the allottees they also filed objection before the trial court in respect of the same plot and area, hence they cannot be said to be aggrieved by any irregularity in the notice. Moreover if the recommendation of the Additional commissioner is accepted it will be the restoring of allotment for few year more about the illegal allotment of land which was reserved for public purpose. The allottee had only contended that the Sub-Divisional Officer has changed the nature of that land and then he had allotted land. No such change is possible for a land to be allotted for agricultural purposes. The Sub-Divisional Officer is only empowered the allot the land for abadi purpose under Section 122-C of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 to the preference category of the person if the land reserved for abadi purpose is found to be insufficient. 6. In these circumstances I do not accept this reference and it is accordingly rejected.