ORDER B.L. Yadav, J. - The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and orders dated 25-9-76, 19-11-1971 and 19-8-69 passed by the Board of Revenue, Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut and the Sub- Divisional Officer, Sadar, Muzaffarnagar respectively in a proceeding under section 198(2) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity) for cancellation of the lease dated 15th August, 1965 and the application for cancellation of the lease was allowed by the trial court and the revision before the Additional Commissioner filed by the petitioners was recommended to be dismissed and the Board of Revenue by its order dated 25-9-1976 dismissed the same. 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The lease was granted in favour of the petitioners on 15-8-1965 by the Chairman, Land Management Committee, Barwala, District Muzaffarnagar. The Supervisor Kanungo submitted a report to the Sub- Divisional Officer about the irregularity in the grant of the lease and the Sub-Divisional Officer accordingly started proceedings for cancellation of the lease in favour of the petitioners. 3. The petitioners filed objection alleging that the lease has correctly been granted and there was no irregularity. The Sub-Divisional Officer held that the land vested in the Gaon Sabha was less than eight per cent of the total area of the village. Accordingly, the lease dated 15-8-1965 was cancelled. A number of revisions were filed before the Additional Commissioner which were recommended to the Board of Revenue for being dismissed and ultimately the said revisions have been dismissed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the State Government did not make any rule under the Act to the effect that no lease can be made by the Land Management Committee in respect of a land vested in Gaon Sabha if the total area of the Gaon Sabha land is less than ten per cent of the total land of the village and that para 58 of the Gaon Sabha and Bhumi Prabhandhak Samiti Manual was invalid and in any case the provisions of Para 58 aforesaid were directory in nature and beyond the rule. making power of the State of U.P. It was further urged that the suo motu action was taken. making power of the State of U.P. It was further urged that the suo motu action was taken. But no notice for taking suo motu action was given by the Sub-Divisional Officer as held in the case of Chhanga Lal v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Camp at Allahabad, 1972 Rev Dec. 43. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents has urged that this Court has held in Gokal Ram v. Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad 1980 All WC 555 : (1980 All LJ 856) that the provisions of Para 58 of the Manual are not against the provisions of the Act and are not ultra vires nor the provisions of the said paragraph were invalid. It was further urged that in Rama Kant v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1974 All LJ 834: ( AIR 1975 All 126 ) a Full Bench of this Court has held that once the proceedings have been initiated and the respondents have been given opportunity to lead evidence and to contest the case, in that event even though no notice was given to the petitioners for the purposes of exercise of suo motu powers, the order cancelling the lease would not be vitiated. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the petition has no substance and deserves to be dismissed. In Gokal Ram v. Board of Revenue, U. P. at Allahabad 1980 All WC 555: (1980 All U 856) (supra) it has been held after considering the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder that Para 58 of the Gaon Sabha Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual was not against the provisions of the Act nor the said paragraph was ultra vires. I need not go in detail and repeat the reasons given in the said judgment. Further in the Full Bench case of Rama Kant v. Deputy Director of Consolidation 1974 Act LJ 834 : ( AIR 1975 All 126 ) (supra) it has been clearly held on page 838 para 17 that once the notice is issued to the persons concerned and those persons contested the case on merits it cannot be said that any person has been taken by surprise by the exercise of the suo motu power. In such a case even if the Sub-Divisional Officer does not pointedly bring out to the notice of the party concerned that he proposes to exercise his suo motu powers, and that what the party concerned has to say about it, the order will not be vitiated for it is a settled law that the power to act is there. The action will not be invalid simply because the relevant provision of law conferring the power is not quoted. In this view of the matter, even though specifically a notice was not given to the petitioners that the Sub-Divisional Officer was proposing to exercise suo motu powers, nevertheless the impugned orders cannot be held to be vitiated as the petitioners had sufficient opportunity to contest the case and they actually contested it and led evidence, hence they were not prejudiced in any other way. Some other authorities were cited by either side. But it is not necessary to refer them here as the main points argued by the parties have been considered. 7. In view of the discussions made hereinbefore, the writ petition lacks merits and it is accordingly dismissed. But under the circumstances of the case there shall be no orders as to costs.