JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - In these two references dated May 27, 1974, the learned Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, has recommended that the order of the learned trial court dated January 7, 1974, ordering the Tahsildar to conduct an inquiry on the spot and send a report whether suo moto action needs be taken, may be set aside and the case be remanded to the learned Collector to decide himself if any suo moto action should be taken. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist Ram Jhalak and the learned D.G.C. (R) for the Gaon Sabha since notice had been sent to the parties for hearing although no objection had been filed. 3. Once notice is issued, I do not consider it proper to refuse hearing. However, the complainants Ram Sabad and Ram Binai in the two cases in the trial court have not appeared in spite of notice. 4. The question under consideration is rather short, that the preliminary enquiry to assess the need of suo moto action by the Collector can be ordered or not. The learned counsel has argued that if a preliminary enquiry was conducted and then, if reed arises, enquiry as provided under Section 198(4) was later conducted, it would amount to unnecessary duplication apart from complication caused by two judicial enquiries at different levels. The learned D.G.C.(R) contended that the order of January 7, 1974 was an administrative order and so no revision would lie. 5. After reading the order dated January 7, 1974, I cannot accept that it is an administrative order, for it partly disposes of the two complaints of Ram Sabad and Ram Vinay as time-barred. It makes sense that a preliminary judicial enquiry by Tahsildar is neither contemplated under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, nor can it be consistent with the legal procedure, particularly in these proceedings of rather summary nature. But an administrative enquiry cannot he dispensed with. Obviously, in the administrative enquiry maximum that can be done is to inspect the site, at any official level considered satisfactory, report the facts and also report about the entries in land records as available in the Tahsil. But an administrative enquiry cannot he dispensed with. Obviously, in the administrative enquiry maximum that can be done is to inspect the site, at any official level considered satisfactory, report the facts and also report about the entries in land records as available in the Tahsil. Calling the parties in Tahsildar's court for respective evidence will impart to it the nature of a judicial enquiry not contemplated under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act to he carried out by Tahsildar. 6. The recommendation of the Additional Commissioner that the Collector should decide himself if suo moto action is to be taken (without any enquiry or report) is a tall order; the Collector must have a reasonable basis for suo moto action. If on every complaint, he has to start enquiry himself as suo moto action, it may ultimately turn out to be infructuous labour in majority cases. The complainants may also not reveal all necessary facts, but only create suspicion that something may he wrong. If the Collector was prohibited from finding out facts through administrative action, this would only delay the proceedings and add to unnecessary work. The Section 198(4) of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act reads - "The Collector may of his own motion........enquire in the manner prescribed .........." There is no mention of basis of suo moto action. The Collector must have some reasonable basis for suo moto action and this necessitates an order for administrative enquiry and report, which, no doubt, must be confined to finding out facts by local inspection and consultation of village records, without resorting to a judicial enquiry after calling both the parties at Tahsil. 7. It may be further added that the discretion to take suo moto action rests with the Collector and it is not for him to obtain a recommendation of Tahsildar if suo moto action needs be taken. The report must be confided to statement of facts and the Collector without giving any consideration to a recommendation, if any, appended to the report, must use his own discretion to find out if he must take suo moto action. This part of the procedure appears to he lacking clarity and removal of ambiguities becomes necessary. 8. The report must be confided to statement of facts and the Collector without giving any consideration to a recommendation, if any, appended to the report, must use his own discretion to find out if he must take suo moto action. This part of the procedure appears to he lacking clarity and removal of ambiguities becomes necessary. 8. In consequence, the order of the Collector as it is and in so far as it relates to the order to Tahsildar to enquire fully and report with recommendation cannot he sustained and needs modification. The last but one sentence in the order dated January 7, 1974, i.e., 'However.......... by this court' is liable to be set aside and the Collector has to pass order for an administrative enquiry and report within the scope outlined above. 9. Accordingly, the revisions are partly allowed, references are accepted to that extent, the aforementioned part of order dated January 7, 1974 is set aside and the case remanded to the Collector with the direction to proceed further as directed above. 10. This order will govern reference Nos. 295 and 296 of 1973-74, Azamgarh.