JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, M. - This reference 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 29.3.1990. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that Raja Ram son of jiwan, resident of village Mominpur Ahmedabad Tahsil Sadar, District Rampur was allottee plot Nos. 447, 494 and 131 total area 6-6-0 on 13.6.1983 for 10 year for pisciculture. There was a complaint against him that he is harassing the other villagers for their rightful use of the tank for which there is no allotment. Notices were issued against him. After taking evidence the trial court cancelled the leasses on 31.7.1989. The revision was filed against that order by the allottees. The Additional Commissioner has recommended the reference with the recommendation that the revenue court has no jurisdiction to cancel the leases for allotment of pisciculture. 3. I have heard the learned D.G.C.(R). Nobody has appeared on the side of the applicant. Perused the record. No objection had been filed. 4. The land is agricultural land which is used for agricultural purpose or purpose connected to agriculture like poultry farm, piscicultural and animal husbandry. The land was allotted to the revisionist for pisciculture. It is a purpose connected with agriculture, hence his admission to the land shall be deemed admitted under Section 197 o U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. All admission under Section 195 to 197 are covered under the provisions of Section 198(4) of the Act. The allotment was for abadi purpose hence the trial court has jurisdiction t decide and adjudicate the allotment. The finding recorded by the Additional Commissioner that allotment of tank for fisheries cannot be tenable. 5. There are two types of ponds rivers or other sources of the water where there are fish. There may be a source of water where the fish may be reared and the land can be used for pisciculture. Such type of land which is allotted is for agricultural purpose in accordance with definition of the land under U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The sources of water where there is already fish such fish can be auctioned for fishing, they will not definitely be covered for the allotment of land under Section 195 to 197 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The sources of water where there is already fish such fish can be auctioned for fishing, they will not definitely be covered for the allotment of land under Section 195 to 197 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The auction and lease of such fishing right will not be governed under U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act except as provided under Rule 115-S of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules. Hence there is very little bar where the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and Rules does not apply. For the most of the area in which the land alongwith water has been vested in Gaon Sabha the right of Gaon Sabha exist the allotment and auction procedure of such fishing rights shall be governed by the provisions of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Admittedly and definitely the land and water which has not vested in the Gaon Sabha and there is fish the allotment of such land for fishing the provisions of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act will not be applicable. In the present case the allotment of the land was for abadi purpose and its use was agriculture, i.e. purpose connected with agriculture, therefore the trial court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the proceeding, therefore, the reference is not accepted and the trial court's order is rejected.