JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by Sri S.H. Hasan, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad recommending that the revision against the order dated December 3, 1969 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Torabganj, district Gonda in Case No. 2 under Rule 115-N, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules may be allowed and the order of the trial court be set aside. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The Opposite parties Sadawarti, Ram Saroj, Bhawani Prasad and Suraj Din Kori had moved an application to the Sub-Divisional Officer alleging that the Pradhan Gaon Sabha had auctioned a plot of 15 biswa area which was reserved for 'Abadi' during consolidation operations in favour of the revisionist Sharda. They alleged that they were using this land for keeping their Khalihan and tying their cattle and did not have enough land in their possession whereas the revisionist already possessed considerable land. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer held that the auction in favour of the revisionist was irregular and cancelled the auction. The learned Additional Commissioner has, however, held that there was no irregularity in the auction. 4. It is common ground between the parties that the land in question was reserved for Abadi during consolidation. The rules for allotment of land for Abadi sites are given in Rules 115-L to 115-P of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules. Rule 115-M provides as follows: "115-M (1) Abadi sites other than those referred to in Rule 115-L and vested in a Gaon Sabha may be allotted for construction of buildings for residential or charitable purposes or for purposes of cottage industry in the following order of preference: (a) A landless agricultural labourer or a village artisan residing in the village; (b) A Bhumindhar, Sirdar or Asami residing in the village and holding land less than 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres); (c) Any other person residing in the village. (2) Every allottee under this rule shall be required to deposit an amount equal to 40 times of the rent of the land calculated at hereditary rates which shall be credited to the Gaon Fund; Provided that no premium shall be charged in respect of a site allotted for charitable purpose." Rule 115-N provides as follows: "115-N. (1) Whenever the Land Management Committee proceeds to allot housing sites under Rule 115-L or 115-M, it shall announce by beat of drum in the village the exact location of the sites to be allotted the time, the date and venue of the allotment. (2) All allotments shall be made by the Land Management Committee in a meeting held for the purpose on the date announced under the preceding sub-rule. Where more than one person, belonging to the same order of preference express their desire to be allotted a particular site, the said Committee shall draw lots to determine the person to whom the site should be allotted. (3) The allottee of the housing site shall be given the receipt for the premium, if any, paid by him to the Land Management Committee and a certificate of allotment. The certificate shall be in Z.A. Form 49-F which shall be prepared in two parts, the main certificate being given to the allottee and its counter-part remaining with the Land Management Committee for record." The maximum are to be allotted under these rules is provided under Rule 115-O which reads as follows: "115-O The maximum area of allotment under Rule 115-L or 115-M shall not exceed 250 square metres and the allottee shall not be required to pay ground rent therefor. Provided that the limit of 250 metres shall not apply to cases of allotment of land for construction of a building for a charitable purpose or for setting up a cottage industry." 5. The learned Additional Commissioner has not bothered to go through the rules, which specifically prohibits allotment of an area of more than 250 square metres of Abadi site, except where the building is to be constructed for a charitable purpose or for setting up of cottage industries. It is undisputed that in the present case the land allotted was more than the prescribed limit of 250 square metres. The learned held that the allotment was irregular. 6. It is undisputed that in the present case the land allotted was more than the prescribed limit of 250 square metres. The learned held that the allotment was irregular. 6. Another irregularity found by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer was that through the auction was held on February 10, 1966, the proceedings of the auction has been recorded not on the same day. The proceedings were recorded in the proceeding book on April 26, 1966. The learned Additional Commissioner has failed to consider this irregularity. The learned counsel for the revisionist has also failed to show how this irregularity can be condoned. 7. The learned Additional Commissioner has wrongly taken the view that the application of Sadawarti and others was time-barred. They had stated in their application that they has earlier given an application regarding the irregular allotment before the Sub-Division all Officer on Feb. 16, 1966 but on that application the order was passed on September 24, 1966 to the effect that they should present another application which may be inquired into by the Tahsildar. In compliance with this order, they presented the second application on October 28, 1966. As the auction was held on February 10, 1966 and was entered in the proceedings book on April 26, 1966, it cannot be said that the application was time-barred. The learned counsel for the revisionist has referred to M/s. D.N. Roy v. State of Bihar, AIR 1971 S.C. 1045 , in which the following observations have been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court: "We agree that if the exercise of a power can be traced to an existing power even though that power was not purported to have been exercised, under certain circumstances, the exercise of the power can be upheld on the strength of an undisclosed but undoubted power. But in this case the difficulty is that at no stage the Central Government intimated to the appellant that it was exercising its suo motu power. At all stages it purported to act under Rules 54 and 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. But in this case the difficulty is that at no stage the Central Government intimated to the appellant that it was exercising its suo motu power. At all stages it purported to act under Rules 54 and 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. If the Central Government wanted to exercise its suo motu power it should have intimated that fact as well as the grounds on which it proposed to exercise that power to the appellant and given him an opportunity to show cause against the exercise of suo-motu power as well as against the grounds on which it wanted to exercise its power, Quite clearly the Central Government had not given him that opportunity. The High Court thought that as the Central Government has not only intimated to the appellant the grounds mentioned in the application made by the 5th respondent but also the comments of the State Government, the appellant has adequate opportunity to put forward his case. This conclusion in our judgment is untenable. At no stage the appellant was informed that the Central Government proposed to exercise its suo motu power and asked him to show cause against the exercise of such a power. Failure of the Central Government to do so, in our opinion, vitiates the impugned order." In the present case, however, the Sub-Divisional Officer did not take suo motu action and, therefore, his order would not be vitiated on the ground of failure to inform the revisionist that suo motu action was being taken against him. 8. The learned counsel for the revisionist has also referred to Changu Lal v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1972 R.D. 43, in which a learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court has likewise held that where the Deputy Director of Consolidation proposed to exercise his suo motu power in revising the orders of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, he was bound to intimate this fact to the parties concerned. Failure to do so makes the order of the Deputy Director smack of arbitrariness. In the present case, I do not think that any arbitrariness can be attributed to the learned Sub-Divisional Officer as he did not exercise his suo motu powers. 9. Failure to do so makes the order of the Deputy Director smack of arbitrariness. In the present case, I do not think that any arbitrariness can be attributed to the learned Sub-Divisional Officer as he did not exercise his suo motu powers. 9. As a result of the above discussion, I would partly allow the revision to the extent that allotment of an area of 250 square meters out of the land in dispute in favour of the revisionist shall be valid and the allotment of the area above 250 square metres in favour of the revisionist shall be invalid. The Sub-Divisional Officer shall take steps to eject the revisionist from the area exceeding 250 square metres.