VIKRAM NATH,J. - (1.) CASE has been taken up in revised call. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is present. No one is present on behalf of the private respon­dent No. 4 although name of Sri R.N. Rai, Advocate from the side of the said respondent has been printed in the cause list.
(2.) HEARD Sri Vinod Kumar Rai, Advo­cate holding brief of Sri Sankatha Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel. This petition has been filed against the judgment and order of the Board of Revenue dated 12-12-1984 whereby the Board of Revenue did not accept the rec­ommendation made by the Additional Commissioner anti accordingly dismissed the revision.
(3.) ALLOTMENT of Sirdari rights with re­gard to Plot No. 405 was made in favour of the petitioners in the year 1975. Two applications, one by Jagardeo and the other by Sheodas Ram were filed before the Collector, Ghazipur for cancellation of said allotment under Section 198 (4) of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The Collector recorded evidence in both the cases sepa­rately however, while deciding passed a common judgment dated 17-11-1977 hold­ing that the allotment had not been made in accordance with the procedure laid down in the rules framed under the Act and accordingly cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioners. The pe­titioners filed two revisions before the Com­missioner. Apart from other grounds taken in the revisions regarding the correctness of the order of the Collector, one of the grounds taken was that the Land Man­agement Committee had not been made a party in one of the cancellation proceed­ings. The Additional Commissioner vide the order dated 23-3-1978 did not con­sider the other points raised in the revi­sions but only on the question whether Land Management Committee was a nec­essary party or not, made recommenda­tion that as the Land Management Com­mittee was not made a party in one of the cases even though it was a necessary party and, therefore, the matter ought to be remanded to the Collector for a fresh decision after impleading the Land Management Committee and affording it opportunity. The Board of Revenue disagreed with the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner and was of the view that as the Land Management Committee was already a party in the other connected matter and had been given due opportunity, therefore, it was not necessary to remand the matter again and it accord­ingly affirmed the order of the Collector cancelling the lease.;