JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, Member. - This revision has been preferred under Section 333-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 by the Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad vide his recommendation dated 15.5.1989. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that a proceeding was being tried before the Upper Collector (Nagar) Moradabad under Section 198(4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. He finally passed order on 21.9.1988 and held that the application of Pawan Kumar for cancelling of allotment was rejected and the allotment in favour of Hem Raj was held to be valid. Revision was filed against that order. The learned Additional Commissioner has recommended the revision that no notice was issued under Section 198(5) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, hence the order is illegal and it should be set aside. In the trial court the applicant Pawan Kumar claimed that he was in possession over the disputed plot from before 1975 A.D. The learned trial court had held that there is no evidence to prove it. He has admitted that Pawan Kumar is landless agricultural labourer belonging t scheduled caste. If he was in possession in 1975 then by operation of law he was deemed to be admitted over the disputed plot. The Gaon Sabha has no right and title to allot that land to any person else. The trial court should verify this fact whether he is in actual possession over the disputed plot or not? The finding recorded by the trial court that if any preferential person is left and somebody else is allotted the land the allotment cannot be cancelled, the preferential person may move the land Management Committee for allotment of land to him subsequently. This is incorrect view of trial court. The land is allotted by the Land Management Committee the preferential person first should be allotted land then any other person should be considered. If this is not following the whole proceeding is null and void. 3. In these circumstances of the case the trial court has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in him properly, therefore, this reference is accepted and the order of the trial court dated 21.9.1988 is set aside the trial court is directed to redetermine the question involved in this allotment as discussed above.