JUDGMENT Nathoo Lal, Member - This is a review petition against the order dated 3-9-1982 passed by Sri I. B. Singh, learned Member of the Board in two revision Nos. 81 and 82 of 79-80 district Aligarh Ghamandi Lal v. State of UP preferred against the common order dated 28-2-80 passed by the Additional Commissioner Agra Division, Agra dismissing thereby revision Nos. 26 and 29 of 79-80 of district Aligarh upholding the order dated 6-11-79 passed by the Additional Collector Aligarh in cancellation of the allotment dated 28-8-75. 2. The grounds taken in the petition briefly stated are that on 10-2-78 applicant Ghamandi Lal made a compliant to the Collector Aligarh against -he irregular allotments made by the Pradhan of the village in favour of several persons of the village on the allegations that the allottees were also not eligible tor the Gaon Samaj land. Further contentions of the petitioner are that an enquiry was made by the S.D.O. and the S.D.O. Koil submitted his report dated 2/15-5-78 after which the Additional Collector issued show cause notices to the allottees and to the Chairman L.M.C to show cause why the leases executed in the meeting dated 7-12-75 may not be cancelled and notice was a.so issued to the applicant Ghamandi Lal as complainant and not for the cancellation of leases made in his favour in the meeting of 28-8-75. It has also been alleged by the petitioner that no notices to several allots of Seven but to the utter surprise, under some confusion the Additional collector Aligarh making enquiry passed order of cancellation of pattas made in favour of the applicant - revisionist Ghamandi Lal ana Sita Ram also without affording them any opportunity to safeguard their interest. As a result of which the order dated 6-11-79 passed by the Additional Collector became meaningless, erroneous in law being arbitrary, perverse and without jurisdiction as the learned Additional Collector did not apply his mind and passed the order against the facts of the case. The petitioner has further contended that the learned Additional Commissioner has dismissed the revision of Ghamandi Lal and Sita Ram without applying his mind in passing the order dated 28-2-80 repeating the same error of law as was done by the learned Additional Collector Aligarh rendering the order under revision before this court illegal the order is against the facts of the case itself. Consequently the petitioner says that unfortunately in the second revision the learned Member of the Board also dismissed the revision under his order sought to be reviewed by omitting to consider the facts are evident from the record and thus has committed the same error of law as had been committed by the two courts below. 3. We have heard the learned counsels for the petitioner as well as the learned D.G.C. (R) and have perused the file. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his argument has pressed and confined to the point that the allotment in favour of the complainant/petitioner Ghamandi Lal and Sita Ram were not made in the meeting dated 7-12-75 which was the material date so far as the cancellation of allotment was concerned. The learned counsel has repeated the points narrated above while stating the versions of the petitioner. 5. The learned D.G.C. (R) on the other hand during the course of his arguments has vehemently opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner particularly with regard to the alleged fact that no show cause notice for the cancellation of allotment made in favour of complainants Ghamandi Lal and Sita Ram was given as required under law nor the cancellation of this allotment was a subject matter of enquiry proceedings. The contentions of the learned D.G.C. (R) are that the learned trial court making enquiry had given show cause notice to the complainants/Ghamandi lal and Sita Ram asking them to show cause why their leases may not be cancelled. He has further disclosed that the petitioner/revisionist also filed their written statements raising objections against the show cause notice given to them for the cancellation of allotment in their favour and both the documents are in the file. The learned D.G.C. (R) has gone ahead to argue that it is also clear that the enquiry proceedings although started on the complaint of the petitioner - revisionist but were after wards converted into suo moto action by the order of the Additional Collector and therefore any allotment made whether in favour of the parties complained against or in favour of the complainants themselves became the subject matter of enquiry proceedings. 6. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not be able to give any suitable and satisfactory reply to the above points relating to facts supported by documents in the file raised by the learned D.G.C (R) and we do not find any reason to disagree with the learned D.G.C. (R). In the suo moto action the allotments made in favour of any party can be enquired into. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that any mistake or error apparent on the face of record has been committed by the learned Member of the Board while passing the order sought to be reviewed nor any error of jurisdiction, illegality or impropriety has been committed by the learned Additional Commissioner while passing the order sought to be revised. 7. We therefore do not find sufficient grounds to interfere into the impugned order passed by the learned Member of the Board in the disposal of this review petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed.