JUDGMENT : Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. against 3 orders passed by Revenue Courts returning concurrent findings. Petitioner has set up a case that on the date of vesting i.e. 01.07.1952, disputed plots were recorded as shore and banjar in the name of Gaon Sabha Kasna whereas case of contesting respondents was that they were allotted land by Bhoodan Samiti in terms of provisions of Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagya Act, 1952 (for short “Act of 1952”) and therefore, they have accrued rights. 2. Initially proceedings under Section 183 and 186 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short “Act of 1950”) were initiated, wherein an order was passed restoring the entry in respect of disputed plots in favour of Gaon Sabha and an appeal was preferred by contesting respondents no. 1 and 2 was dismissed vide order dated 06.12.1991. 3. State of U.P. vide notification dated 01.02.1986 has resumed large number of plots belonging to village Kasna including disputed plots and its possession was handed over to petitioner on 26.03.1987. 4. It is further case of petitioner that a forged and fabricated lease deed dated 27.01.1984 was prepared and on basis of it, contesting respondents claimed that it was executed by Bhoodan Samiti under Section 14 of Act of 1952. 5. On basis of said lease deed, respondents no.1 and 2 filed an original suit in the year 1991 to declare them as ^^Hkwfe/kj** with non transferable rights. Their suit was contested by State Government, however, it was decreed vide order dated 05.02.1994. 6. In aforesaid suit, following 9 issues were framed:- 7. Trial Court returned following findings on issues no. 1 to 6:- 8. Respondent no.4 i.e. State preferred an appeal against above referred order, however, same was dismissed vide order dated 03.06.1994 and relevant part thereof is quoted below:- 9. In aforesaid circumstances, present petitioner, though was not a party in said suit as well as in appeal, filed a revision petition before Board of Revenue taking a specific ground that large part of land including land in dispute was resumed by Gaon Sabha and handed over to petitioner as well as that it was always recorded as shore and banjar land. 10. 10. Board of Revenue vide order dated 19.01.2004 dismissed the revision petition and relevant part of order is quoted below:- 11. Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner has referred grounds taken in revision petition that same were not considered by Board of Revenue and despite land in dispute was always recorded as a shore and banjar land as well as that no material was brought on record that land in dispute was part of land which was donated to Bhoodan Samiti since such nature of land could not be donated, the revision was wrongly rejected. 12. S/Sri S.K. Shukla and Ashish Kumar Singh, learned advocates for respondents have submitted that lease was executed by Bhoodan Samiti and on basis of said lease, possession was proved by oral evidence and in case there was any illegality, the Collector was empowered to cancel the grants or lease under provisions of Section 15 -A of Act of 1952, however, same was not initiated. No material has been brought on record that lease was forged. 13. Heard learned advocates for parties and perused the record. 14. The Act of 1952 is a Special Act which applies to land donated to Bhoodan Samiti and that said land could be distributed among the landless persons of the State. Section 14 of it provides grant of land to landless persons and Section 15 -A provides cancellation of certain grants. For reference, both sections are quoted below :- "14. Grant of land to landless persons: (1) The Committee or such other authority or person as the Committee with the approval of the State Government, specify either generally or in respect of any area, may, in the manner prescribed, grant lands which have vested in it to the [landless agricultural labourers] and the grantee of the land shall: (i) where the land is situate in any state which has vested in the State Government under and in accordance with section 4 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, acquire in such land the right and the liabilities of a [bhumidhar with non-transferable rights] and the grantee of the land shall- (ii) where it is situate in any other area, acquire therein such rights and liabilities and subject to such conditions, restrictions and limitations as may be prescribed and shall have effect, any law to the contrary notwithstanding. (2) Where the committee or other authority or person as aforesaid fails to grant any land in accordance with sub-section (1) within a period of three years from the date of vesting of such land in the committee or from the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagya (Amendment) Act, 1975, whichever is later, the Collector may himself grant such land to the landless agricultural labourers in the manner prescribed, and thereupon the grantee shall acquire the rights and liabilities mentioned in sub-section (1) as if the grant were made by the committee itself. (3) [* * *] (4) In making grant of land under this section, the committee or other authority or person as aforesaid or the Collector, as the case may be, shall observe the following principles : (a) At least fifty per cent of the land available for grant shall be granted to persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and persons belonging to the Kol, Pathari, Khairwar, Baiga, Dharikar, Panika and Gond Tribes and such other tribes as the State Government on the recommendation of the Committee may notify in this behalf; (b) The land situate in one village shall, as far as possible, be granted to persons residing in that very village. Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, the expression "landless agricultural labourer" means a person whose main source of livelihood is agricultural labour or cultivation and who at the relevant time either holds no land or holds lands not exceeding 0.40468564 hectares (one acre) in Uttar Pradesh as a bhumidhar [***] asami or [Government lessee]. ***** 15. Grants to be made in accordance with Bhoodan Yagya Scheme. – All grants shall be made as far as may be in accordance with the scheme of Bhoodan Yagya. 15A. ***** 15. Grants to be made in accordance with Bhoodan Yagya Scheme. – All grants shall be made as far as may be in accordance with the scheme of Bhoodan Yagya. 15A. Cancellation of certain grants: (1) The Collector may of his own motion and shall on the report of the committee or on the application of any person aggrieved by the grant of any land made under Section 14 , whether before or after the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagya (Amendment) Act, 1975, inquire into such grant and if he is satisfied that the grant was irregular or was obtained by the grantee by misrepresentation or fraud, he may- (i) cancel the grant, and on such cancellation, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 14 or in any other law for the time being in force, the rights, title and interest of the grantee or any person claiming through him in such land shall cease, and the land shall revert to the committee; (ii) direct delivery of possession of such land to the committee after ejectment of every person holding or retaining possession thereof, and may for that purpose use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary. (2) Notice of every proceeding under sub- section (1) shall be given to the committee, and any representation made by the committee in relation thereto shall be taken into consideration by the Collector. (3) No order shall be passed under sub- section (1) except after giving an opportunity of being heard to the grantee or any person known to the Collector to be claiming under him. (4) The order of the Collector passed under sub-section (1) shall be final and conclusive." 15. Section 12 of Act of 1952 is also very relevant which provides lands which cannot be donated, which includes common pasture lands, cremation or burial grounds, tank, pathway or threshing floor. Land of shore and banjar also falls within it and for reference, Section 12 is also quoted below :- "12. Section 12 of Act of 1952 is also very relevant which provides lands which cannot be donated, which includes common pasture lands, cremation or burial grounds, tank, pathway or threshing floor. Land of shore and banjar also falls within it and for reference, Section 12 is also quoted below :- "12. Lands which cannot be donated: Notwithstanding anything contained in any law an owner shall not, for purposes of this Act, be entitled to donate the land falling in any of the following classes, namely:- (a) lands which on the date of donation are recorded or by usage treated as common pasture lands, cremation or burial grounds, tank, pathway or threshing floor; (b) land in which the interest of the owner is limited to the life-time; (c) such other land as the State Government may by notification in the Gazette specify." 16. Material on record before this Court clearly indicates that land in dispute is mentioned as shore and banjar land which on face of it cannot be termed as donated land for purpose of Act of 1952. 17. Case of contesting respondents was based on a lease deed and a declaratory suit was filed on basis of said lease deed. During suit, as many as, 9 issues were framed which includes whether contesting respondents were landless persons or not as well as that land in dispute was a part of donated land to Acharya Vinoba Bhave, but finding returned on said issue is based on an entry of 1361-F that Gata no. 519 was recorded in name of Acharya i.e. a land falls within the ambit of Act of 1952. However, it is also not disputed that during consolidation, revenue entry was of shore and of banjar land. Source of entry of Acharya Vinoba Bhave is not on record. 18. In this regard, argument of learned counsel for petitioner has substance that while returning the findings on issues, issue no.3 i.e. contesting respondents were eligible for grant was not decided on merit. 19. In aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that revision petition was decided on basis of grounds raised in memo of revision, specifically a ground about above referred issue i.e. contesting respondents were eligible for lease in terms of Act of 1952 or not as well as entries in favour of Gaon Sabha. A reference is taken of following grounds of revision :- “7. A reference is taken of following grounds of revision :- “7. Because as the land in dispute was recorded as shore and Banjar in the name of Gaon Sabha Kasna since long before 27.01.1984, the date for alleged lease in favour of plaintiffs by Sri Badloo Singh, the so-called Sanyojak of Bhoodan Samiti, District-Bulandshahar, therefore, plaintiffs could not get any right or title on the basis of said lease dated 27.01.1984 and thus their suit for declaration about the land in dispute is liable to be dismissed. 9. Because both the plaintiffs are the household ladies and not the landless agricultural labourers and therefore, they are not entitled to any benefit under Section 122-B (4F) and their suit was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 10. Because even both the plaintiffs are the resident of Bulandshahar City and, therefore, it is not possible for them to be in physical possession over the land in dispute which is about 35 kms. from Bulandshahar and thus, the theory of their possession is totally false and against the true facts of the case and hence their suit is liable to be dismissed. 11. Because as the land in dispute was not recorded in the name of Bhoodan Samiti but was recorded as Gaon Sabha property, the so- called Sanyojak of the Bhoodan Samiti, district Bulandshahar had no authority to execute any lease about the said land. 13. Because their being no specific finding about the plaintiffs to be landless agricultural labourers by the Courts below, their suit for declaration on the basis of the provisions of Section 122-B (4F) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act could not be decreed.” 20. Accordingly, impugned order dated 19.01.2004 is hereby set aside and matter is remitted back to Board of Revenue to pass a fresh order, after hearing rival parties adverting to grounds raised in memo of revision. 21. In view of above, present writ petition stands allowed in part.