JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, M - In this reference dated May 5, 1978, the learned Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, has recommended that the order of the learned Additional Collector, dated December 29, 1977 cancelling the lease for fishing rights granted in favour of Jiut may be set aside and the revision petition be allowed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record. 3. The facts of the case have been given by the learned Additional Commissioner in paras 2 and 3 of his order dated May 5, 1978 and are also in para 2 of the Additional Collector's order dated December 29, 1977. Admittedly, there was no auction and the meeting of the L.M.C. was held on October 25, 1977 without minimum three days notice and it was decided to lease the fishing rights to Desai for ten years, against the decision to auction these rights taken on August 23, 1977. The G.O. No. 10081/Rajaswa-17-806/74 dated November 10, 1975 prescribes for priority to fishermen in the matter of leasing such rights but does not prescribe any procedure. But the Additional Collector was not right in presuming that the procedure of auction was no longer left. Rule 115-A(3) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules empowers the State Government to issue directions on matters relating to functions of the L.M.C. as laid down in Section 28 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act in so far as they appear necessary for the purpose. Section 22-B(1)(a) of the Act incudes 'the maintenance and development of fisheries and tanks'. Therefore, the above quoted G.O. had the force of law and read with the Rule 115-S(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, it makes clear that the auction would be held in accordance with the procedure outlined therein, but would have to be limited to the persons in the list of fishermen and such persons who have been given priority in the G.O. Thus there should be a limited auction. 4. There are two revisions, one by Dasai and the other by Jiut. The learned counsel for Jiut has argued that under Rule 115-S(1)(vi) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules the Collector has power to heat appeals, but cannot himself pass order of cancellation of the lease granted by the Pradhan. 4. There are two revisions, one by Dasai and the other by Jiut. The learned counsel for Jiut has argued that under Rule 115-S(1)(vi) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules the Collector has power to heat appeals, but cannot himself pass order of cancellation of the lease granted by the Pradhan. The learned counsel for Dasai argued that the Goan Sabha had no jurisdiction (or power) to give lease to a person without auction. He further argued that the S.D.O. was not right in endorsing the lease. This, therefore, raises the question, which of these orders can be considered judicial orders, making a revision maintainable. The recommendation by the learned Additional Commissioner shows a very superficial consideration of the nature and legality of the order of the Additional Collector passed on December 29, 1977. 5. If the Collector is deemed to have no jurisdiction because it was no appeal under Rule 115-S(1)(vi) against any order passed by the Tahsildar under Rule 115-S(1)(v), it must also be conceded that since there was no auction at all, there could be no objection to auction under Rule 115-S(1)(iv), nor any decision by the Tehsildar under Rule 115-(1) (v) nor any order by the Additional Collector under Rule 115-S(1)(vi). The order dated December 29, 1977 could be deemed, in the circumstances, to be an administration order against which no revision would lie. 6. As discussed earlier, on the basis of the procedure laid down under Rule 115-S(1) and G.O., the lease could be granted by holding a limited auction amongst the persons depending on fisheries as their livelihood. Just because the G.O. did not give any procedure for giving lease, the Collector was not authorised to direct allotment of fishery lease by draw of lots, and the procedure given in Rule 115-S(1) could not be invalidated and denied to the fisherman in general. Since the lease in pursuance of resolution dated October 25, 1977 was not in accordance with the rules, it was illegal and the order of the Additional Collector dated December 29, 1977 could be deemed a decision that the lease being illegal was abinitio void. 7. The argument that only the Tehsildar had power to cancel the lease, is only a superficial one. 7. The argument that only the Tehsildar had power to cancel the lease, is only a superficial one. The Tehsildar can uphold or set aside the auction under Rule 115-S(1)(v) after hearing parties on an objection filed within 42 days of the auction, the latter a decision being based on the auction being unfair, illegal or highest bid being inadequate. Under Rule 115-S(1)(viii), the Tehsildar can within six months of the date of auction, set aside the auction on the ground of illegality and the lease or licence thereupon shall stand cancelled. The Collector is empowered to hear appeal against both above orders. It is settled law that an appellate authority enjoys the powers of the authority from whose orders it hears the appeal. Holding no auction at all was a glaring illegality and the Tehsildar who could cancel the auction on the ground of illegality resulting in cancellation of the lease Rule 115-S(1)(vii) must also be deemed to have power to cancel the lease on account of all illegality of not holding the auction at all, for there is no provision in law for any lease without auction. This power is also inherent in the appellate authority who is the Collector. Viewed from this angle, the Collector does have the power to interfere on receiving an objection and must be held to have jurisdiction to declare the lease without auction as illegal. 8. As regards the approval by the S.D.O. accorded the lease, it must be said that the approval has no value at all. In case of auction, if there is no objection within 42 days, or if the objection made within 42 days, is rejected by the Tehsildar or the Collector, the auction becomes final under Rule 115-S(1)(iii). The learned counsel for Jiut did not shown any provision, how a lease granted without lease was to be approved by the S.D.O. or any other authority. Therefore, approval by the S.D.O. on November 15, 1977 did not convey any finality to the lease. The rules make it clear that finality of the lease is not achieved by approval or confirmation by some authority but by prescription of law. 9. Therefore, approval by the S.D.O. on November 15, 1977 did not convey any finality to the lease. The rules make it clear that finality of the lease is not achieved by approval or confirmation by some authority but by prescription of law. 9. In view of the above consideration, it is concluded that the order by the Additional Collector dated December 29, 1977 holding the lease illegal and cancelling the same, was passed under Rule 115-S(1)(vii) and there was no illegally or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by him and the revision of Jiut is, therefore, found to be without force. As regards the revision by Dasai, here is no doubt that no procedure to grant lease by drawing lots has been prescribed either in the rules or in the C.O. issued under Rule 115-A. Therefore, this part of order dated December 29, 1977, directing grant of lease by draw of lots being against the law, must be held to be passed in exercise of jurisdiction no vested in him and has to be set aside. 10. In the result, the revision petition by Jiut is dismissed, the revision petition by Desai is allowed and the direction in the order dated December 29, 1977 to grant lease by drawing lots is set aside. 11. The authorities concerned may take further action in accordance with the law clarified above. The records of the courts below be returned without further delay. 12. This order shall govern reference Nos. 22 and 22-A of 1978-79/Deoria.