JUDGMENT Amreshwar Pratap Sahi & Vivek Kumar Birla,JJ.: - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was an applicant for the award of a retail outlet under the Rajiv Gandhi LPG Disributionship scheme at village Gauspur, Gram Panchayat Gauspur, District Ghazipur. The petitioner's candidature has been rejected on the two grounds; firstly the land that was offered by the petitioner for the purpose of godown was not situate at the place advertised and secondly the information with regard to availability of the funds in the bank account of petitioner was incorrect. 3. In paragraph 14 of the writ petition, the petitioner admits that the land which was offered for the purpose of godown was hardly 200 mtr. away from the national highway situate in village Shahpur no.1, which is within the same Gram Panchayat Gauspur. The submission of Sri Shiv Sagar Singh is that this should be construed that the land is available in the same village for which the advertisement has been made, inasmuch as, the distributionship is for the benefit of the same gram panchayat. He, therefore, contends that even if the land is in another revenue village, which fact has already been disclosed earlier, the same cannot be a ground for disqualification to non-suit the petitioner as the land is within the same panchayat. 4. He further submits that so far as availability of funds in the bank account is concerned, the petitioner had to withdraw the amount in an extreme exigency as his father was illing seriously. However as on the date of application, the amount was very much available in the bank account and the said ground to non-suit the petitioner is, therefore, untenable. 5. Having considered the submissions raised, we find from the advertisement that the place advertised is village Gauspur in the gram panchayat of Gauspur. Further the terms and conditions which have been appended by the petitioner at page 28 of the paper book clearly recites that the godown has to be located at the advertised place. 6. The submission of Sri Shiv Sagar Singh is that the land offered by the petitioner is at the advertised place. The argument cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the land is situate in a different revenue village may be under the same gram panchayat. 6. The submission of Sri Shiv Sagar Singh is that the land offered by the petitioner is at the advertised place. The argument cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the land is situate in a different revenue village may be under the same gram panchayat. A gram panchayat can consist of one or more revenue villages as per the U.P. Gram Panchayat Act, 1947. The relevant definition that allow this Court to draw this conclusion are Section 2(h), Section 2(t), Section 11-F and Section 12 of the 1947 Act read with the words "Gram Panchayat" used separately from the location of the village in the advertisement. The advertisement is categorical for a particular revenue village, and therefore, the contention raised by Sri Shiv Sagar Singh cannot be accepted. 7. Once, it is established that the petitioner does not have the land at the advertised place, it is not necessary for this Court to investigate the availability of funds in the hands of the petitioner. 8. There is no merit in the writ petition and is accordingly dismissed.