JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - Satyapal and others have filed this revision under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the order of the Addl. Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra dated 27.10.1983. The learned Addl. Commissioner has passed that order in revision No. 14 1982-83 against order of Addl. Collector, Etah dated 1.10.1982 passed in a proceeding under rule 198(4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. The land was allotted to the revisionists in 1966 which was challenged that they are not resident of the village, they are not landless agricultural labourers, they belong to upper caste Thakur community (Chhatriya). There is 80 to 90 bighas land in the names of their family. The leases were cancelled. Revision was filed against that order which was allowed and remanded, that no notice under Sec. 198(5) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 was issued, hence direction was to issue notice under sub-section 5 of Section 198 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Again the notice were issued, evidence was taken and the leases were cancelled on 11.10.1982. 3. Against that order the revision was filed before the Addl. Commissioner who dismissed the revision vide his order dated 27.10.1982. Against that order this revision is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. Both the courts have labourer finding that the allottees are not resident of the village, hence they are not entitled for allotment they are also not landless agricultural labourer. There is sufficient land in their family and in their names. There is no illegality on material irregularity have been committed in the order of the learned trial court as well as in the revisional court. Hence there is no ground to interfere in this revision. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the land in the name of their father cannot be considered in cancelling the allotment. This correct but in this proceeding the allottees are not resident of the village and they are not also eligible person to be allotted the land. 5. In these circumstances there is no force in this revision and it is accordingly dismissed.