JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - These 162 references has been made by the Additional Commissioner, Agra under Section 333-A of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 vide his recommendation darted 11.5.1985. 2. In brief the facts of the cases are that the land Management Committee of Village Sakraya, Tahsil and District Mathura allotted land to 209 persons on 14.11.1975. The allotment proceeding of 161 allottees was initiated. The trial court has dropped the proceeding vide his order dated 31.1.1981. Then these 162 revision has been filed against 161 allottees. Wrongly two revision has been filed against the allottee Hiri Lal, hence there has been two revisions against his so the revision number has exceeded by one revision against 161 allottees. The report for cancellation of allotment was that the land was not demarcated before the allotment, therefore, the possession was not delivered. After the notice one Teja allottee appeared and he filed objection that hes is in possession over the land allotted to him. In the allotment proceeding the Chairman of the Land Management Committee, Members, Lekhpal, Kanungo and Naib Tahsildar were present and all the proceeding was done in accordance with law. Witnesses were examined in support of this pleadings of the allottee. The trail Court dropped the proceeding and withdrew the notice issued against the allottees. Against which these revision has been filed. 3. I have heard the learned D.G.C.(R). No one is present on behalf of the opposite party. Perused the record. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner has recommended the reference by first recordings his own finding on the point of issue of proclamation and notice for the allotment. Any evidence being there in the file. He recorded himself that they are not in accordance with rules. The learned Additional Commissioner also came to the conclusion that since possession was not delivered therefore, the allotment is illegal and should be cancelled. He also recorded his own finding that the dispute land are bone of contention, hence he recommended that the allotment should be cancelled of all the 161 allottees. I have gone through the file of Teja Singh of the trial court in which two witnesses were examined. They all supported about the allotment. No any evidence was produced by the State. I do not understand from where the learned Additional Commissioner got evidence to record the finding otherwise than that of the trial court recorded. I have gone through the file of Teja Singh of the trial court in which two witnesses were examined. They all supported about the allotment. No any evidence was produced by the State. I do not understand from where the learned Additional Commissioner got evidence to record the finding otherwise than that of the trial court recorded. He has himself arrived on certain conclusions beyond the record. 5. The Additional Commissioner had only power to examine the revision under Section 333-A on the following ground that the proceeding has been decided illegally and without proper authority as mentioned in Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The Additional Commissioner is not given power to record its own finding on fact. He has only given one legal point in his recommendation that the possession was not delivered, hence the allotment should be cancelled. The learned Additional Commissioner had not cared to see the provisions of the laid down under Section 198-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 in which the responsibility has been imposed upon the Sub-Divisional officer to deliver possession to the allottees. 6. In the allotment proceeding an allottee can claim possession only when the allotment has been completed and patta has been executed in his favour. Before that he cannot claim any right, title over the land proposed to be allotted to him. Only the delivery of possession is given after the allotment proceeding is completed. In the allotment proceeding only the survey number of the plots and the area either in total or in fraction is indicated in the resolution and that resolution is forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Officer for his approval, when the approval is obtained then the patta is executed. Before this no one has any authority to claim for the possession. In one case of Teja he has categorically admitted that he is in possession. I do not understand how the Additional Commissioner had come to the conclusion that no possession has been delivered. Even if some of the allottees have not got the possession the possession can be delivered to them under Section 198-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 by use of force. 7. I do not understand how the Additional Commissioner had come to the conclusion that no possession has been delivered. Even if some of the allottees have not got the possession the possession can be delivered to them under Section 198-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 by use of force. 7. The allotment proceeding have been done during the drive for the allotment of the land under the direction of the State Government because the Kanungo and the Naib Tahsildar was also present in the allotment proceeding beside the Lekhpal/Secretary of the Land Management Committee from the side of the revenue official. In the Khatauni the mutation has been also done in favour of the allottees. The allotees had not turned up to oppose the cancellation of the allotment proceeding. Only one Teja has appeared. It shows that the allottees are not in a position to contest the proceeding. The trial court has held that they are landless agricultural labourers. 8. In these circumstances of the case I do not accept the references. They are accordingly rejected and the order of the trial court is maintained. This order shall govern Revision No. 203 to 375 of 19884-85/Mahtura.