JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, M. - This is a revision against the judgment of Sri Chitrangad Singh, Addl. Commissioner, Jhansi, dated February 20, 1971 in appeal No. 9 of 1968-69 dismissing the appeal and maintaining the judgment of S.D.O., Maudaha dated September 17, 1968 in case No. 31 of 1967 Shiva Prasad and others v. L.M.C., Sirsi Khurd, under Section 198(2) of Z.A. and L.R. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. Sheo Prasad and Ramai had filed an application before the S.D.O., Maudaha on April 4, 1967 for the cancellation of the leases executed by the Gaon Sabha village Sirsi, respondent No. 1 in favour of Shukhla and others respondents Nos. 2 to 40. The S.D.O. held that the application had been moved beyond the period of limitation and no application had been moved to waive the limitation nor any sufficient cause of delay shown. The trial court also held that the leases were granted according to the provisions of law and the question of taking suo moto action did not arise. The trial court, therefore, rejected the application. The learned Addl. Commissioner dismissed the appeal as not maintainable as no appeal lies against the refusal of the S.D.O. to take suo moto action. Against this order the present revision has been filed. 4. Section 198 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act reads as follows :- "198. The trial court, therefore, rejected the application. The learned Addl. Commissioner dismissed the appeal as not maintainable as no appeal lies against the refusal of the S.D.O. to take suo moto action. Against this order the present revision has been filed. 4. Section 198 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act reads as follows :- "198. Order of preference in admitting persons to land under Sections 195 and 197-(1) In the admission of persons to land as Sirdar's and Asami under Section 195 or Section 197 hereinafter in this section referred to as 'allotment of land', the Land Management Committee shall, subject to any order made by a court under Section 178, observe the following order of preference : (a) any educational institution recognised by the Director of Eduction, Uttar Pradesh or by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh or by a University and imparting instructions in or providing for research in agricultural horticulture or animal husbandry : (b) landless widow, sons, unmarried daughters or parents residing in the circle, or a person who has lost his life by enemy action while in active service in the Armed Force of the Union ; (c) a person residing in the circle, who has become landless on account of his land having been compulsorily acquired under the provisions of any law relating to acquisition of land on or before the date of vesting ; (d) a landless person, residing in the circle, retired released or discharged from service (other than service as an officer) in the Armed Force of the Union ; (e) landless political suffer or residing in the circle who has not been granted political pension ; (f) a landless agricultural labourer residing in the circle and belonging to a schedule caste or scheduled tribe.; (g) any other landless agricultural labourer residing in the circle. (h) a Bhumidhar, Sirdar or Asami holding landless than 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres) ; (i) any other person. (h) a Bhumidhar, Sirdar or Asami holding landless than 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres) ; (i) any other person. Explanation I. - For the purposes of this sub-section- (i) 'landless' refers to a person who or whose spouse or minor children hold no land as Bhumidhar, Sirdar or Asami ; and except in Clause (c) ; also held no land as such within two years immediately preceding the date of allotment ; and (ii) 'agricultural labourer' means a person whose main source of livelihood is agricultural labour or assistance or participation with any person in the actual performance of agricultural operations on any land in consideration of a right to share in the produce grown in such land. Explanation. - For the purposes of Clause (e) 'political sufferer' means persons who is certified by the Collector to have undergone either preventive detention or sentence of imprisonment (either as a substantive sentence or in default of payment of fine) for not less than three months for participation in any movement connected with the national struggle for Freedom during the period between 1930 and 1947. (2) The land that may be allotted to- (i) an educational institution under Cl(a) of sub-section (I) shall not exceed such area as together with the area held by it immediately before the allotment would aggregate to more than 5.04 hectares (12.50 acres) ; (ii) any person under Cls. (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) or Clause (i) of sub-section (1) shall not executed an area of 1.25 hectares (3.125 acres) ; and (iii) any person under Clause (h) of sub-section (1) shall not exceed such area as together with the land held by him as Bhumidhar, Sirdar or Asami immediately before the allotment would aggregate to more than 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres). (3) The Collector may of his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment of land inquire in the manner prescribed into such allotment and if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular he may- (i) cancel the allotment and the lease, if any, and thereupon the right, title and interest of the allottee or lessee or any person claiming through him in the land allotted or leases shall cease, and such land shall revert to the Gaon Sabha, and (ii) direct delivery of possession such land forthwith to the Gaon Sabha after ejectment of every person holding or retaining possession thereof and may for that purpose use of cause to be used such force as may be necessary. (4) Every order passed by the Collector under sub-section (3) shall subject to the provisions of Section 333, be final." 5. The learned S.D.O. has stated in his judgment that Sukhla, Gajodhar and Maiku, sons of Jagannath, who are respondents Nos. 2 to 4 were allotted land though they were already in possession of more than 6 acres of land and allotment of further land to them was according to law as landless persons were Gajodhar to whom land was granted was a servant of the Pradhan. The S.D.O. has also observed that Bhoora, respondent No. 19, Maiyadin respondent No. 21, Chunnoovad respondent No. 24, Ramadhin respondent No. 25, Mangal Singh respondent No. 31, Sita Ram respondent No. 32, Kalloo respondent No. 33 and Ram respondent No. 37, all had sufficient land ranging from 10 Bighas to 46 Bighas and Mangal Singh was a nephew of the Pradhan. The present revisionist claims to be a landless agricultural labourer of the same village, but has not been allotted any land. This would show that the order of preference laid down in Section 198 has been violated and allotment of land made in an arbitrary manner to persons related to the Pradhan. In view of the factual position as found by the learned S.D.O., he should have taken action on his motion under sub-section (3). It is true that sub-section (3) provides that the Collector may of his own motion enquire into the matter of allotment and may cancel the allotment if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular. In view of the factual position as found by the learned S.D.O., he should have taken action on his motion under sub-section (3). It is true that sub-section (3) provides that the Collector may of his own motion enquire into the matter of allotment and may cancel the allotment if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular. The use of the word 'may' however, does not mean that it has been left to the sweet-will of the Collector to take any action. The word only means that it has been left to the judicial discretion of the Collector to take.action. Sub-section (4) further provides that the order passed by the Collector in sub-section (3) shall be final subject to the provisions of Section 333. This also indicates that the discretion of the Collector has been circumscribed and the Board of. Revenue has been given the power to see whether the Collector has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him or acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. 6. In the present case the findings of the learned S.D.O., leave no doubt that he should have taken action on his motion for cancellation of the irregular allotments. His refusal to do so amounts to refusal of exercise of jurisdiction vested in him. The learned Addl. Commissioner has taken an erroneous view of law in upholding the order of the S.D.O. 7. I hereby allow this revision and set aside the orders of the courts below and direct the S.D.O. to proceed to take suo moto action under sub-section (3) of Section 198 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.