JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - This revision petition has been filed by Smt. Chandrakala against the order dated 24-7-1979 by the learned Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, recommending that be revision petition against the order of the learned trial court dated 16-12-1978 be dismissed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 3. The learned trial court by its order dated 10-12-1978 cancelled the lease in favour of the revisionist on the ground that Smt. Chandrakala was not landless and being the daughter of the Pradhan, no permission of the SDO had been obtained before the lease. It appears that the land was allotted in 1966 and arising out of the mutation proceedings, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) referred the case by the order dated 15-9-1967 for cancellation of the lease and this matter went up to the Board and by order dated 11-9-1975, it was sent back to the learned trial court. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the Settlement Officer Consolidation had no jurisdiction to take suo-moto action on 15-9-1967 and so the entire proceedings thereafter were vitiated, that there was no suo moto action by the Collector on 4-2-1976, he merely sent the case to the Additional Collector for disposal who had not issued any show cause notice to the allottee nor indicated the grounds for such action which was necessary in view of the ruling reported in 1972 RD 43 and the ruling reported in AIR 1971 SC 1045 . He further argued that the reasons for cancelling the allotment that the revisionist was the daughter of the Pradhan and was not landless, were not acceptable and in support, cited ruling reported in 1983 AWC 131 in which the requirements of section 28-C of the Panchayat Raj Act was explained. He further argued that it was only on the basis of the lekhpal's statement that the court held the revisionist not landless and since no basis of Lekhpal's statement was shown, it was not binding, there being no extracts from the revenue records, there could be no presumption that she was not landless. In support, he cited a ruling reported in 1968 RD 497. 5. In support, he cited a ruling reported in 1968 RD 497. 5. The learned DGC (R) has argued that the Lekhpal's statement was not challenged about the revisionist having 4 bighas 4 biswas and 17 dhurs, that the daughter of Pradhan is covered by section 28-C of the Panchayat Raj Act, that after the Amendment Act XXX of 1975, only information was necessary and no suo-moto action was required to be taken nor was there any limitation for the purpose and so the action taken by the learned trial court after 4-2-1976 was perfectly in order. 6. While I do not agree that the earlier proceedings than 4-2-1976 should be deemed to have the effect of vitiating the subsequent proceedings because the real proceedings started only after 4-2-1976 and the earlier report dated 22-12-1975 was only in the nature of information on which the action was based, I also had substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that being a mere daughter of the Pradhan does not require any approval of SDO. The ruling reported in 1983 AWC 131 is quite clear on this point. Therefore, on this ground, the cancellation of allotment could not be upheld. 7. Coming to the other grounds being landless or otherwise, I must hold that the learned trial court took its decision without considering the necessary evidence and even on insufficient evidence. The ruling reported in 1968 RD 497 is to the effect that the lekhpal's evidence without being based on village papers is nothing. No doubt, the learned trial court should have required the necessary extracts from the land records to be filed by the Lekhpal which would help in cutting out all doubts on the point. 8. As regards the show cause notice, I find that the ruling reported in 1972 RD 43 relates to suo-moto action in consolidation proceedings and will not be applicable to the present case. Similarly, the other ruling reported in AIR 1971 SC 1045 relates to action by the Central Government under the Mining Leases Act while the present case was a judicial proceeding and, no doubt an opportunity of hearing was available to the revisionist who complain of no show cause notice being given to her. Similarly, the other ruling reported in AIR 1971 SC 1045 relates to action by the Central Government under the Mining Leases Act while the present case was a judicial proceeding and, no doubt an opportunity of hearing was available to the revisionist who complain of no show cause notice being given to her. In the case referred to in the ruling, the lessee was aggrieved as there was really no notice for all consideration was in the Government without any judicial proceedings. Apart from this, I agree with the learned DGC (R) that after the Amendment Act XXX of 1975, it was not necessary for the Collector to intimate the revisionist that he was taking action on his own motion. The mere fact that the action was started, in the absence of any complaint from the aggrieved person, would raise presumption that the action was on his own motion. 9. Thus, in this case, the decision by the learned trial court remains without jurisdiction only on the ground that the allotment was cancelled without considering sufficient and relevant evidence. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed, the order of tho learned trial court dated 16-12-1978 in so far as it relates to the allotment to Smt. Chandrakala is hereby set aside and the case is remanded to the learned trial court for decision afresh after himself completing the enquiry require Under law. The next date before the trial court is fixed for 1-11-1983.