JUDGMENT : Sangeeta Chandra, J. 1. This petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 12.10.2009 passed by the respondent No. 1 in Revision No. 279 filed under section 333 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and also for quashing of the order dated 25.5.2006 passed by respondent No. 2 in Case No. 97 filed under section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act: Smt. Usha Devi v. Afat Ali and others. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had filed a Suit No. 96 under section 198(4) of the Act for cancellation of lease deed dated 20.3.1999 made out in favour of respondent No. 4-Afat Ali to carry out tree plantation in the land belonging to the Gaon Sabha. 3. The petitioner had claimed that she had been in the peaceful possession of land since the time of her father and her father has planted several fruit bearing trees on the said plot of land and such trees are still standing. The petitioner's boring/tube-well was also situated in the said plot of land. An application was moved under section 198 of the Act, which was rejected by the Collector by the order impugned, saying that the petitioner has not set up any case that she was more eligible than the respondent No. 4 for grant of lease of Gaon Sabha land recorded under 'Banjar Khata'. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a Revision in which Revision the Additional Commissioner directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Utraula to carry out a spot inspection. In the said spot inspection carried out, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had reported that petitioner had planted several fruit bearing trees and had possession over the land in question and it was adjacent to her residential house. The patta therefore could not have been given by the Land Management Committee. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that despite such a report being submitted, the Additional Commissioner has rejected the Revision on the ground that, firstly, the petitioner is not a more eligible person to claim land to be leased out to her, and secondly, the allegation of the petitioner that the land in question was adjacent to her house and her ingress was being affected by the grant of lease to the respondent No. 4 had been made out. 5. This Court has carefully perused the orders impugned. 5. This Court has carefully perused the orders impugned. It finds that after the spot inspection was carried out and report was submitted, it was found that the land was recorded as Gaon Sabha Land under 'Banjar Khata'. On such land under section 198, all eligible persons could be eligible for grant of lease. The petitioner was not a more eligible person than the respondent No. 4 and it was not her case that she should have been granted patta over the land as she was more eligible. 6. This Court has also found from the facts as have come out from the orders impugned that only because the petitioner's house was adjacent to the land of the Gaon Sabha, she was claiming title over it and that the said land was alleged to have already been covered with trees, and therefore, lease for plantation of more trees could not have been given to respondent No. 4. 7. The petitioner has already filed Regular Suit No. 392 of 2005: Smt. Usha Devi v. Afat Ali, which is pending before the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Utraula, Balrampur, with regard to the same land in question. 8. This Court finds no good ground to show interference in the orders impugned. However, it is always open for the petitioner to get her claim decided by the competent civil Court with regard to the better right to claim adverse possession of a Gaon Sabha land. 9. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.