JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, M. - This is revision against an order dated March 18, 1982 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, dismissing revision No. 35/81-82/Mainpuri against order dated August 30, 1979 passed by learned Additional Collector, Mainpuri dismissing application of the applicant dated December 2, 1974 moved by applicant Pradhan of the village for cancelling the Pattas of the opposite parties on which his signatures were obtained by fraud and concealment by Lekhpal ect. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 3. It has been argued that the learned Additional Collector acted beyond jurisdiction in not taking suo motu action and holding the application of the applicant as of not interested person being estopped being Pradhan, inspite of the report of the S.D.O. dated February 20, 1975 fro taking suo-motu action. Reliance has been placed on 1980 R.D. 145, 1978 R.D. 219, 1979 R.D. 100 and that the ruling relied upon by the courts below namely 1971 R.D. 115 which was regarding bar of suit under Section 229-B, 1973 R.D. 69, 1973 R.D. 82 and 1979 R.D. 357 are distinguishable as they are either on the point that validity of Patta in cases under S. 229-B was not to be locked into or are in the cases in which it was held that consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to see validity of Patta; that it was a fit case in which learned Additional Collector ought to have taken suo motu action. 4. It was argued in reply relying on 1971 R.D. 115, 1975 R.D. 82, 1973 R.D. 69; that Pradhan of the L.M.C. was estopped from moving application for cancellation of Pattas; that the concurrent findings of both the courts below should not be interfered with. 5. In Azimullah v. Gaon Sabha 1971 R.D. 115 it was held that a member of Gaon Sabha unless authorised was not competent to conduct litigation on behalf of Gaon Sabha at his sweet will so it is not the case direct on the point. 5. In Azimullah v. Gaon Sabha 1971 R.D. 115 it was held that a member of Gaon Sabha unless authorised was not competent to conduct litigation on behalf of Gaon Sabha at his sweet will so it is not the case direct on the point. In Someru v. Jagardeo 1973 R.D. 69 it was held that the order of S.D.O. cancelling the patta having been set aside by the learned Additional Commissioner in appeal L.M.C. had no right to seek any relief under Section 198(2) had no locus-standi to file a revision but it was also held that Board itself could have taken action sou-motu in exercise of powers conferred under Section 333 of the Act, in that case the revision was filed by the Gaon Sabha who held was not as aggrieved person in the individual capacity but it was held that the application by the Pradhan in his name as such was not on behalf of Gaon Sabha but was in his individual capacity, therefore, Pradhan in individual capacity was not debarred from filing application for cancellation of Patta. In Jatashankar v. State 1973 R.D. 82 it was held that if lease was granted by Gaon Sabha the Gaon Sabha cannot itself revise order of cancellation as remedy was available to the State Government for getting it cancelled or to file declaratory suit. Thus it is clear that in some of the above cases it was held that Pradhan as such or in his individual capacity was debarred from moving any application for taking sou-motu action for cancellation of patta granted by the L.M.C. In Ram Narain v. Nagar Mahaplika, Kanpur 1979 R.D. 201, it was held that power of cancellation of lease granted by L.M.C. cannot be exercised by Consolidation authorities, Assistant Collector Ist Class or Additional Commissioner in suit under Sections 229-B/208 of Act I of 1951. 6. 6. In Ram Bahadur Singh v. Sheo Pratap Singh 1980 R.D. 145, it has been held as follows:- "It is not a prayer in a private party's application that confers suo-motu powers on him to move under Section 198, Z.A. and L.R. Act when the matter came up before him with a number of allegations of usurpation of Gaon Sabha land by O.Ps 1 and 3 to 5 the Collector while not granting the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act ought to have seen whether suo moto action would be justified. It was self evident that public interest was involved and the matter of the application did not concern the applicant's private interest. Whether the application was mala fide or not would be a relevant point to be seen but the primary concern of the Collector would be to see if a prima facie case was disclosed for suo motu action even if no proper had been made for it." 7. The same view has been reported in 1973 R.D. 219. In Kanchan v. Shyam Sunder etc. 1979 R.D. 100, the Collector had ordered suo-motu action then had cancelled the proceeding which order was set aside in revision and the Collector was directed to conclude the proceeding and to pass appropriate final order. 8. Thus it is clear that there is no prohibition against Pradhan for filing application for taking suo-motu action if such application is moved in his individual capacity and not as Pradhan of the L.M.C. by its resolution. Only L.M.C. has been estopped from moving for cancelling of patta granted by it. 9. In the present case the application was moved by Pradhan in his individual capacity that his signatures were obtained by fraud and concealment practised on him which was found to be correct by the S.D.O. per his report recommended for suo-motu action, therefore, in my considered opinion the learned Additional Collector has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him for takin suo-motu for starting proceeding for cancellation of pattas of the opposite parties and wrongly relied upon the above noted rulings riled on behalf of the opposite parties which ever lay down that Pradhan was estopped even in his individual capacity to move application for taking suo-motu action. In the present case the allegation of the Pradhan in his individual capacity is that he is an illiterate person and his signatures were obtained by playing fraud and concealment on him for granting pattas to the opposite parties which were found to be correct by the learned Assistant S.D.O. who recommended for suo-motu action but the learned Additional Collector wrongly held that the Pradhan was estopped from moving such application. 10. As a matter of fact it was a fit ease for taking suo-motu action. The application of the Pradhan in his individual capacity was that of an aggrieved person who was really aggrieved person as found out by learned S.D.O. Nobody else was most aggrieved than the Pradhan in his individual capacity who was defrauded and concealment was played upon him and his signatures were obtained in such circumstances for granting alleged pattas. In such a circumstances such Pradhan in his individual capacity cannot be held not to be aggrieved person and cannot be excluded from the category of aggrieved person as required by the section and in such cases it is the duty of the Collector of the district to take suo-motu action. If he fails to do so he refuses to exercise jurisdiction vested in him for taking suo-motu action, therefore, this revision application is liable to be allowed and the order passed by the learned Additional Collector is liable to be set aside and the case is liable to be remanded to his court for taking suo-motu action after giving required notices to the opposite parties mentioning specific grounds alleged in the application of Pradhan in his individual capacity for proposed cancellation of the pattas. 11. In view of the above this revision application is allowed. The orders passed by both the courts below are set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Additional Collector of the district for taking suo-motu action against the opposite party complying the aforesaid directions.