ORDER R.S. Singh, J. - This petition has been directed against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 22-11-1973, by which the Sub Divisional Officer (hereinafter referred to as S. D. O.) has passed an order under Section 95-A of the U. P: Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 to execute the lease within a period of one week. 2. The facts of the case, as set-up by the petitioners, in brief are that in the year 1964, under the grow more campaign, the State Government directed the pradhans of the Gaon Sabha to give possession of the user lands to the needy persons and if on giving possession, they are able to cultivate these areas, they should be finally granted pattas for the same. In pursuance of this direction, the previous pradhan gave possession of the disputed plots to the petitioner No. 1 in the year 1964. The petitioner No. 1 had been in possession since the year 1964 and he made certain investment in making the plots fit for cultivation. By a resolution dated 26-12-1971, the Land Management Committee made the allotment of the aforesaid plots in favour of the contesting respondents. The S. D. O., by his order dated 30-3-1972 approved the allotment. On 22-11-1973, the Tahsildar reported to the S. D. O. that in spite of his order, the Pradhan has not executed the lease. An application was moved on behalf of the lessee to issue direction under Section 95-A of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. The S. D. O. after hearing the concerned parties, by an impugned order issued direction for execution of the lease within a week. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order of the S. D. O. before this Court. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that under Section 95-A of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, the S. D. O. has no jurisdiction to pass such direction. Therefore, the order passed by the S. D. O. is without jurisdiction. It was further contended by the learned counsel that the land in dispute was given by the Pradhan to the petitioner, No. 1 and, therefore, it could not have been allotted in favour of the respondents, as the land was not vacant. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that in the impugned order, Section 95-A of the U, P. Panchayat Raj Act has wrongly been quoted. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that in the impugned order, Section 95-A of the U, P. Panchayat Raj Act has wrongly been quoted. In fact, the S D. O. has got the power to issue such direction and it falls under R. 115 (J) of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Rules. The next contention of the learned counsel was that the petitioners have got no locus standi to challenge the impugned order. Therefore, the writ is liable to be dismissed on this ground as well. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties. As far as the first point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned it has to be considered whether the impugned order was passed under Section 95-A of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act and in this case, the S. D. O. was competent to pass such order or not. It has not been pointed out by the learned counsel for both the parties whether the power exercised by the State Government was delegated to the S. D. O. and in absence of any delegated power in favour of the S. D. O., no order under Section 95-A of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act could be passed by the S. D. O. But according to the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, the S. D. O. has the power to issue such direction under the provision of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Rules and the Section 95-A of the Panchayat Raj Act has been wrongly quoted in the order of the S. D. O. Therefore, it has to be considered whether this order could possibly be passed under the provision of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Rules or not. The provision of the Rule 115 (J) of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Rules is as follows: - "115 (J). (1) The Asst. Collector in charge of the sub-division shall exercise superintendence and control over the affairs of the Land Management Committees within his sub-division and make such periodical inspections as may be deemed necessary. The inspections may be made by himself or by Tahsildar, Naib-Tahsildar, Supervisor Kanungo of his sub-division. (1) The Asst. Collector in charge of the sub-division shall exercise superintendence and control over the affairs of the Land Management Committees within his sub-division and make such periodical inspections as may be deemed necessary. The inspections may be made by himself or by Tahsildar, Naib-Tahsildar, Supervisor Kanungo of his sub-division. (2) The inspecting officer shall examine whether the procedure laid down m the rules or instructions regarding maintenance of accounts and holding of meetings by the Land Management Committee has been followed. (It shall also be the duty of the inspecting officer to ensure the proper execution and registration or attestation, is the case may be, of lease granted by the Land Management Committee in respect of admission to land within the period provided therefor under law). (3) The Asstt. Collector in charge of the sub-division and the Tahsildar shall check the accounts of at least 5 per cent and 10 per cent; respectively of the Land Management Committees within the subdivision during their tours in the year. (4) The records, registers and accounts of the Land Management Committee shall be maintained by the Chairman of the said committee and the Supervisor Kanungo shall check those records, registers and accounts at least once a year and as often as the Tahsildar or the Asstt. Collector in charge of the Subdivision may direct. It shall also be the responsibility of the Supervisor Kanungo to report cases of mismanagement, abuse of power or negligence, misappropriation of funds, embezzlements and other irregularities on the part of the Land Management Committees, their Chairman or members to higher authorities concerned for necessary action, as soon as such cases come to his notice either during the course of inspection or otherwise." A persual of the above rule shows that a duty has been cast upon the inspecting officer to ensure the proper execution and registration or attestation as the case may be of the lease granted by the Land Management Committee in respect of the land. Therefore, the S. D. O. has got the power to issue direction for execution of the lease under this provision.. Therefore, the S. D. O. has got the power to issue direction for execution of the lease under this provision.. Wrong quotation of section in any order is immaterial if it is proved that the authority has no power to issue such order under that section but if it is proved that the order could be passed under other provisions by that authority, then the order passed by such authority cannot be said to be bad in law. In this view of the matter, I find that the order passed by the S. D. O. was under Rule 115 (J) of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Rules and it was within his power. Therefore, the order passed by the S. D. O. cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. 5. Coming to the second contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land was not vacant, therefore, the allotment was invalid. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any valid allotment or title in favour of the petitioner No. 1. At the most, according to his case, the pradhan had permitted him to cultivate the land. This certainly does not create any title in favour of the petitioner No. 1 in the land in dispute. There was no prohibition in making the allotment in favour of any person. Now, coming to the last point raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner has no title in the land in dispute and, therefore, he is not an aggrieved person and has no right to challenge the order passed by the S. D. O. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any valid allotment or title in favour of the petitioner, No. .1 and at the most according to his case, the pradhan had allowed the petitioner No. 1 to cultivate the land in dispute. This does not create any title in favour of the petitioner No. 1. The procedure has been given in the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Rules for allotment and in absence of any allotment, according to provisions of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Rules, the petitioner has no title in the land in dispute. This does not create any title in favour of the petitioner No. 1. The procedure has been given in the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Rules for allotment and in absence of any allotment, according to provisions of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Rules, the petitioner has no title in the land in dispute. The allotment made by the Land Management Committee through a resolution dated 26-12-1971, has been approved by the S. D. O. by his order dated 30-3-1972. Therefore, the Gaon Sabha, the petitioner No. 2 has got no right to challenge the impugned order. Thus, it is clear that the petitioners have got no locus standi to challenge the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any error in the order of the S. D. O. which may justify interference in writ-jurisdiction. 6. In the result, I And no force in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. However the parties shall bear their own costs.