JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This revision has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act .No. 1 of 1951 by Shiv Govind and Baijnath against Mahabir, Jagmohan and L.M.C. against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi dated 28.2.1981 passed in Revision no 223/205 of 1979 against the order of Collector Ghazipur dated 4.4.1979 passed in a proceeding under Rule 115-P of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and D.G.C.(R) for State. 3. In brief the facts of this case are that plot no. 142 area 0-3-10 of Village Ghaunghunipur, Pargana Mohammadabad, District Ghazipur was allotted to opposite parties for abadi purposes. The revisionist filed the application for cancellation of that abadi site on the ground that it belongs to them. The proceeding was contested by the allottee. The trial court dismissed the application on 4-4-1979 on the ground that the Land Management Committee was not impleaded as a party. The revision was filed against that order in the court of Additional Commissioner who has also dismissed the revision on the same ground by his impugned order. Against that order this revision has been filed. 4. In this revision the learned counsel for the revisionist has filed the copy of order of Civil Suit No. 292 of 1981-Mahabir v. Shiv Govind dated 24.10.1986. The Civil Court has dismissed the suit of allottee and have concluded that it is old abadi of the defendant Shiv Govind and Baijnath who are revisionist in this proceedings. Hence there has been litigation between the parties in a regular suit, the finding of that will be binding to the parties and any finding of revenue court for the cancellation of lease is subject to the finding of the regular suit i.e. a suit decided in civil court. If the Civil Court finally decide that she land in suit is old abadi then Gaon Sabha has no right and title to allot the land and the allotment is void ab-initio and there is no necessity for this proceeding. A finding already has been in favour of the revisionist irrespective of the fact whatever the finding has been recorded by the trail court and the Additional Commissioner, that finding of Civil Court will prevail. Now there is no necessity to adjudicate this proceeding, hence the revision is accordingly disposed of.