JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—Raising a short controversy with regard to interpretation of Section 198(3) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’), the present writ petition is at the instance of allottees, who claimed allotment of four plot Nos. 35, 46, 211 and 560 in their favour by the Gaon Sabha. Total area of these plots is 8 Bigha and 10 Biswa. Admittedly, these plots belong to Gaon Sabha. 2. Two petitioners claim that they are lessees of the aforesaid plots in view of the lease-deed dated 3rd July, 1970 executed by respondent No. 1, namely, Gaon Sabha in their favour. Their names were not recorded in basic year when the consolidation operation commenced in the village. An objection under Section 9(a)(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, claiming sirdari right over the aforesaid plots in pursuance of the lease-deed referred to above was filed. The claim was contested by the Gaon Sabha on the ground that these plots are public utility land and therefore, could not be subject matter of allotment. It was pleaded by the Gaon Sabha that plot No. 35 is being used as play-ground of children of the adjoining school. Plot No. 46 is a part of abadi and manure pits. Consolidation Officer allowed the claim in part. The matter was carried in appeals both at the instance of the petitioners as well as Gaon Sabha. Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide the order dated 9th December, 1974 allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners and dismissed the appeal of Gaon Sabha. The matter was carried in revision being Revision No. 570 by Gaon Sabha before Deputy Director of Consolidation who vide impugned order dated 31st July, 1976 allowed the revision and set aside the patta on the limited ground that patta being in excess of permissible limit as provided under Section 198(3) of the Act, is invalid. Other aspects of the case was not examined and left open. 3. Shri P.N. Saksena, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has not disputed that the patta in question is not excess of the area, as mentioned in Section 198(3) of the Act. His stand is that the patta is valid as it is in respect of two petitioners. Other aspects of the case was not examined and left open. 3. Shri P.N. Saksena, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has not disputed that the patta in question is not excess of the area, as mentioned in Section 198(3) of the Act. His stand is that the patta is valid as it is in respect of two petitioners. The area of the land under the lease-deed if is divided between these two petitioners, the land in the share of each person would be within prescribed limit. 4. Shri D.D. Chauhan, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha, on the other hand, supports the impugned order. 5. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The total area of four plots which have been leased out to the petitioners, as mentioned in the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation and not disputed in the writ petition is 5 Biswa; 3 Bigha and 6 Biswa; 2 Bigha and 18 Biswa; and 2 Bigha and 1 Biswa, which comes out of 8 Bigha and 10 Biswa. Section 198 of the Act provides order of preference in admitting persons to land under Sections 198. The sub-section (3) of Section 198 reads as follows: “(3) [The land that may be allotted under sub-section (1) shall not exceed: (i) in the case of a person falling under Clause (c) such areas together with the land held by him as bhumidhar or asami immediately before the allotment would aggregate to 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres); (ii) in any other case, an area of 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres).]” 7. On a plain and simple reading of the aforesaid provisions would show that a limit has been prescribed with regard to area of the land to be allotted. The keywords are “the land that may be allotted” with respect thereof, prescribed outer limit of area is 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres). 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners reads the above provisions in the manner that area of each allottee (person) should not exceed to 1.26 hectares. He has laid emphasis on the word ’person’ which occurs in Section 198(3)(i) of the Act. The argument is not convincing and is against the object and purpose of the aforesaid section. Section talks about allotment of land by lease. Herein, the lease is only one lease which is dated 17th October, 1972. He has laid emphasis on the word ’person’ which occurs in Section 198(3)(i) of the Act. The argument is not convincing and is against the object and purpose of the aforesaid section. Section talks about allotment of land by lease. Herein, the lease is only one lease which is dated 17th October, 1972. The opening words of sub-section “land may be allotted” and “shall not exceed” are the key words to interpret the said sub-section. They undoubtedly, provide that the land that may be allotted shall not exceed the prescribed maximum limit. The lessees may be more than one person. Under the U.P. General Clause Act, singular includes plural also. The lease being singular lease, the argument that it will be spllited up, is misconceived. The prohibition as prescribed is qua a lease. The lease is one and singular, the petitioners are co-lessees. Therefore, sub-section (3) on its plain interpretation does not support the petitioners’ contention. In addition to above, the case in hand falls under sub-section (ii) wherein the word ‘’person’ has not been used. This is additional reason for not accepting the petitioners’ contention. It talks about lease to be allotted and the maximum leased area which can be let out under a lease. 9. There is no merit in the writ petition the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only). Petition Dismissed. ——————