JUDGMENT J.N. Dwivedi, C.C.R.A. - This is a revision against the judgment and order dated 15.10.87 passed by Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division in Revision No. 115 of 1986 filed against the order dated 8.8.86 passed by Additional Collector, Farrukhabad, in a proceeding under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act I of 1951. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and gone through the file. 3. The revisionist submitted an application that the lease executed in respect of plot No. 3093, area 1-00 acre, and plot No. 3441/2, area 0.65 decimals in favour of Rahman was illegal. This application was rejected by the Additional Collector, against which his revision was also rejected by the learned Additional Commissioner. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued before me that the trial court did not summon the original proceedings book and other relevant papers for inspection, and so, his observation that the burden lay on the applicant to prove that the patta was not in accordance with law was not correct. He has relied on a ruling reported in 1986 R.D. Page 241, in which it was held by this Court that once the application for cancellation of a patta was entertained, the burden of proving the contention raised in the application was not entirely on the applicant. The Collector was also bound to conduct the enquiry and should satisfy whether the allotment was legal or not. I totally agree with this argument. In this case, Rahman had himself requested the court for summoning the records, but the records were not summoned and unless the records were summoned, I fail to understand how the trial court gave a finding that the patta was in accordance with law. It appears that the trial court was proceeding in the manner as if Ram Shanker was a complainant and the entire responsibility lay on him. It is the responsibility of the Collector to ensure that the leases executed by the Gaon Sabha are in accordance with law on the subject, so that a third person may not suffer. He has to examine whether there was a proclamation in the village, and whether a list of eligible persons was prepared or not, and whether the proceedings were conducted by the members of the Land Management Committee in an impartial manner to the knowledge of the entire village community. 5. He has to examine whether there was a proclamation in the village, and whether a list of eligible persons was prepared or not, and whether the proceedings were conducted by the members of the Land Management Committee in an impartial manner to the knowledge of the entire village community. 5. In this view of the matter, I allow this revision, set aside the orders of the courts below, and direct the trial court to summon the proceedings book and other relevant records of the village from the Land Management Committee and to enquire whether the patta was legal or not.