JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, Member - This reference arises out of an order dated 4.3.1983 passed by the Addl. Collector, Lalitpur in proceedings u/Sec. 198 (4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition of Land Reforms Act. 2. The facts of the case are that proceedings u/Sec. 198 (4) of the Act were initiated on the application dated 19.7.1976 made by one Karmod Singh to the Collector. The allegations were that the allotment made in favour of Tulsi was against law because he had already held 17.18 acres land at the time of allotment and did not come in the category of landless agricultural labourer. It was further alleged that the revisionist allottee got wrong parentage recorded and succeeded in getting the allotment made in his favour. Besides this no prior permission was obtained from the Collector though the allottee's brother was a member of the L.M.C. Subsequent to the allotment the allottee transferred the land through a sale-deed to Meharban Singh and Laxman Singh who were wealthy persons of the village, the Collector got an enquiry made through the Tehsildar who reported that the allottee's father's name was Mardan and not Harjoo; that Mardan had already held 18.40 acres land in village Pathari and that the allottee's brother Bharosey was a member of the L.M.C. in 1970. In response to the notice, the allottee Tulsi made objection denying the allegations and the allegation that his brother was a member of the L.M.C. and that he being in need of the money to pay off the debt disposed of the land in dispute. 3. Laxman Singh and Meharban Singh also filed affidavits claiming to be the bona fide purchasers. They paid Rs. 12,000/- for the land that their names were also mutated. They further contended that they had no information that there was any irregularity in the allotment of the land and the allottee can be ejected. They also pleaded that the proceedings are barred u/Sec. 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned trial court has observed that the allotment made in favour of the allottee Tulsi and that he transferred the land in dispute through a sale-deed on 30.5.1973 in favour of Laxman Singh and Meharban Singh. The learned Addl. They also pleaded that the proceedings are barred u/Sec. 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned trial court has observed that the allotment made in favour of the allottee Tulsi and that he transferred the land in dispute through a sale-deed on 30.5.1973 in favour of Laxman Singh and Meharban Singh. The learned Addl. Collector cancelled the allotment on the ground that the allottee had committed forgery and succeeded in getting the allotment made in his favour by wrong parentage; he did not come in the category of landless agricultural labourer; his brother Bharosey was a member of the L.M.C. and not prior permission or approval was obtained from the collector or the S.D.O. nor any permission was obtained for selling the land. A revision was preferred against this order before the Divisional Commissioner. The learned Addl. Commissioner is of the view that the sale is not void and the vendees are entitled to the benefit u/Sec. 53 of the Transfer of Property Act and that there is no evidence to substantiate that Bharosey was the brother of the allottee. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned DGC (R.). Sri N.B. Nigam, learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the land held by the father cannot be considered for the purpose of the allotment and that the vendees are entitled to the protection u/Sec. 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned D.G.C. (R.) has contended that the intention of the allottee is bad from the very beginning, in the allotment proceedings his father's name is recorded as Harjoo whereas in the sale-deed, it is recorded as Har Prasad. 5. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced before me and have also perused the record. The allotment was made in 1970. The learned trial court has given a categorical finding that Mardan, father of the allottee had held 18 acres land. The allottee was not living separately from his father and that Bharosey is the real brother of the allottee. He was a member of the L.M.C. and was present at the time of allotment and put his signatures on the proceedings of the committee. These grounds are sufficient for the cancellation of the lease. The allottee had been over smart in getting the land allotted in his favour by hook and crook. He was a member of the L.M.C. and was present at the time of allotment and put his signatures on the proceedings of the committee. These grounds are sufficient for the cancellation of the lease. The allottee had been over smart in getting the land allotted in his favour by hook and crook. With this intention in view, he told the L.M.C. that his father's name was Harjoo and not Mardan. In the sale-deed his parentage is recorded as Har Prasad and not Mardan. All this go to show that he is a cheat. The learned Addl. Commissioner has recommended to set aside the order of the learned Addl. Collector. Where a son is living with his father holding as much as 18 acres land, he cannot be said to be a landless agricultural labourer. In order to prove that he is a landless agricultural labourer, he has to prove that he lived separately from his father. As regards the benefit u/Sec. 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, this point cannot be agitated in proceedings u/Sec. 198 (4) of the Act. In proceedings u/Sec. 198 (4) of the Act, it has only to be seen whether the allotment has been made according to rules. In the present case, it has been proved beyond doubt that the allottee is not a landless agricultural labourer and that he got the allotment made through deceitful means. 6. In the result, this reference is not accepted, the orders passed by the learned Addl. Collector is upheld and the revision petition is dismissed.