JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This reference has been made by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra under Section 333-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 by his order dated 4.02.1987 in revision against the order of Additional Collector, Mathura dated 17.09.1986 passed in a proceeding under Section 198(4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. Chokhey Lal who is Subedar filed application on 24.08.1985 under Section 198(4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 to cancel the leases in favour of the opposite parties Yadram and Murari Lal in the court of Addl. Collector Mathura. The main ground of the applicant was that the Pradhan of the village promised to allot this land to him if any military authority recommend the allotment in his favour. Such recommendaion was forwarded to the Pradhan by the military officer. Inspite of this the allotment was made in favour of the opposite parties without any Munadi, agenda and proper meeting of the land Management Committee. The opposite parties contested the proceeding on the ground that they are landless labourers belonging to the Scheduled Caste and allotment was done according to the procedure in their favour. The applicant is serving solder and there is more than 17 acres of land in the name of his father. After taking the evidence the trial court cancelled the leases and also ordered to take action after inquiry regarding the allotment of land of Ram Singh son of Bhawani Singh and Bisan Lal son of Murlidhar. Revision was filed against this order which has been referred by the Additional Commissioner with the recommendation that no show cause notice under sub-section 5 of Section 198 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 was issued against the allottee; that the revision should be accepted and the trial court's order should be set aside and the case should be remanded for fresh trial after issue of show cause notice. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist. No one is present from the other side. Perused the record. 4. The main question is whether the applicant is serving Soldier in military and in a rank of Subedar is entitled for the allotment of the land. Only the disabled person of the armed forces and their dependents are entitled for the allotment. No one is present from the other side. Perused the record. 4. The main question is whether the applicant is serving Soldier in military and in a rank of Subedar is entitled for the allotment of the land. Only the disabled person of the armed forces and their dependents are entitled for the allotment. Officer is also not entitled for allotment, hence the applicant is not entitled for allotment of land under Section 195. In the proceeding of the allotment four persons were allotted land. The allotment was challenged of two allottees and it was not challenged about the rest of the two. Hence the applicant cannot say that there was no proper resolution for the allotment and cannot challange the allotment proceeding, the consequence of this is that he indirectly admitted the allotment proceeding. In these circumstances no show cause notice is made out against the allottees, therefore, whole proceeding is null and void and, therefore, it is quashed. Reference is modified in this way.