JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by the Additional Commissioner Allahabad Division, recommending that the revision filed by Prag Narain and others against the order dated October 11, 1972 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer Bharthana, district Etawah in a case under Rule 115-N, U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules, may be rejected. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. Certain landless agricultural labourers filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer on November 30, 1970 alleging that the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha Hajipur had misused his office and had leased out the land of the Gaon Sabha in an illegal and irregular manner. The Sub-Divisional Officer started suo motu proceedings for the cancellation of the leases. After due enquiry, the Sub-Divisional Officer passed the order on October 11, 1972 cancelling the leases in question. Aggrieved by this order the lessees Prag Narain Badri Prasad and Ranglal have come up in revision. 4. The grounds taken in the revision are, firstly, that the order for cancellation of the lease is in violation of the principles of natural justice for want of notice and the opportunity of hearing to the revisionists; secondly, that the said Abadi site was allotted as it was required for school purposes; thirdly, that the revisionists constructed their houses soon after the allotment, and the Sub-Divisional Officer could not cancel the allotment to the revisionists; fourthly, that no fraud or collusion had been shown; fifthly, that the provisions of Rule 115-N, U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules are applicable only in case of irregularities in auction, and the allotment to the revisionists without auction is not covered by it; sixthly, that the provisions of Rule 115-N could not be invoked as the said rule has been repealed, and finally, that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to cancel allotment of the disputed land. 5. 5. At the relevant time, Rule 115-N read as follows: "115-N. (1) The Assistant Collector incharge of the sub-division shall, on the application of any person interested, filed within three months of the date of auction, and may, at any time on his own motion, cancel for reasons to be recorded in writing the allotment order on one or more of the following grounds: (i) the bid accepted was inadequate; (ii) the auction was collusive or unfair, (iii) the auction proceedings were not followed in accordance with the rules; (iv) any other ground. (2) No order under sub-rule (1) shall be passed unless the allottee has been given an opportunity to show cause against the proposed action. (3) The decision of the Assistant Collector incharge of the sub-division shall be final." 6. It is indeed true that by Notification No. 256/Rajaswa-I-3(1)-71, dated March 16, 1972 and Notification No. 605/Rajaswa-I-2(8)-75, dated November 1, 1975, the rules relating to allotment of land for housing sites have been amended, but these amendments have not taken away the power of the Collector or the Sub-Divisional Officer to cancel the allotments. Rule 115-P now reads as follows: "115-P. (1) The Collector may, of his own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved by any order of allotment of land under rule 115-L or 115-M, proceed to make an inquiry in the manner given hereunder. (2) The allottee and Land Management Committee shall be necessary parties to all such cases. (3) The Collector on the application of any party or otherwise may pass suitable interim orders at any time before the final disposal of the case. (4) The Collector shall call upon all persons interested in the order of allotment to appear and present their case before him. It shall not be necessary to record evidence but the memo of the day to day inquiry shall be kept on record by the Collector. On making inquiries, if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular, he may cancel the allotment and thereupon the right, title and interest of the allottee and of every other person claiming through him in the land shall case. On making inquiries, if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular, he may cancel the allotment and thereupon the right, title and interest of the allottee and of every other person claiming through him in the land shall case. (5) The order of the Collector under the preceding sub-rule shall be final." The present case, however, will be governed in accordance with old Rule 115-N, as the allotment was made and the proceedings were started when Rule 115-N was in force without the amendments. 7. There is no substance at all in the contention that the impugned order for cancellation of the lease has been passed without notice and opportunity of hearing to the revisionists. On the other hand, the record shows that due notice to all the affected persons and the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha was given and the allottees including Radha Krishna, Smt. Phulan Devi, Ranglal, Devi, Badri, Pratap Singh, Tale Singh, Smt. Rimpha, Babu Ram, Ramswarup, Mangali, Rameshwar and Harbans had filed a joint written statement. Thereafter evidence of the parties was recorded in a regular manner. The impugned order has been passed after taking into consideration the objection of the affected persons as well as the evidence. 8. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer has found that consolidation has taken place in the village and the land has been reserved for Abadi, School, Panchayat Ghar and playground. Neither the Pradhan nor the Gaon Sabha had any right to allot the land which had been reserved for the School, Panchayat Ghar or the playground. Further, the procedure for allotment has been laid down as follows in Rule 115-L: "115-L. Abadi sites situate in the abadi or in the waste land of the area vested in the Gaon Sabha shall be allotted for the purpose of construction of buildings in the following order of preference- (a) a landless agricultural labourer or a landless servant or the village community such as Barhai, Dhobi, Lohar, Sweeper etc., (b) a Bhumidhar, Sirdar or Adhivasi, who is holding less than 5 standard bighas." The Sub-Divisional Officer has held that the land reserved for Panchayat Ghar and playground has been allotted and that the allottees were not landless persons but everyone had more than ten Bighas of land. The learned Additional Commissioner has further found that there is no resolution for converting the land reserved for the public purposes for leasing out and there is no evidence to show that the land in dispute was leased out after observing the formalities prescribed under the rules. 9. The fact that some of the allottees may have constructed their houses on the allotted land does not affect the illegality of the allotment. If the allotments are found illegal or irregular, the Sub-Divisional Officer has to cancel the allotments and cannot confirm the allotment merely on the ground of the construction of the houses. Thus after the cancellation of the allotments, the land will vest in the Gaon Sabha and the allottees will have no rights in the land. They would thereafter be entitled to remove their structure or, in the alternative, may negotiate with the Gaon Sabha for time to remove the structure. But the fact that their houses have been constructed can be no legal ground for setting aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer cancelling the allotments. 10. The impugned order or the Sub-Divisional Officer is quite sound and within the jurisdiction. No illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order has been shown. Agreeing with the recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner, I hereby dismiss the revision.