JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is a reference dated January 7, 1982 made by learned Additional Commissioner Agra Division, Agra, against order dated February 4, 1981 passed by Additional Collector, Aligarh in a case under Section 198(4) of Act I of 1981 ordering Tahsildar to inquire and submit his report along with L.M.C. file through S.D.O. Concerned passed on the application of Malkhan Singh etc. for cancellation of Patta recommending to set aside the impugned order by allowing the revision application as such inquiry was against law because instrument of such inquiry was against law relying on 1981 A.W.C. page 15 (Revenue). 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 3. It has been argued in support of the recommendation that only procedure prescribed is to be followed; that there is no procedure laid down to order the sub-ordinate revenue official to make inquiry in the proceeding of cancellation of Patta. Reliance has been placed on AIR 1936 P.C. 253 , AIR 1960 (S.C.) 802 pare 8 and of course of 1981 A.W.C. (Revenue) 15. 4. It was been argued in reply the the Collector including Additional Collector alone has got exclusively jurisdiction for proceeding in the matter of cancellation of Pattas. No procedure has been prescribed in Section 198 of Act I of 1981; no notice has been issued to the applicant; the Collector or Additional Collector are within their jurisdiction to ask for report from Tahsildar or S.D.O. about execution of Patta of observance of legal procedures of their satisfaction of taking suo motu action or not. Reliance has been placed on 1982 R.D. 97. 5. "Section 198(4) - The Collector may of his own action and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment of land inquire in the manner prescribed, into such allotment, and if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular he may...." 6. This section nowhere lays down how the Collector may of his own motion inquire into allotment of land made by L.M.C. 7. The manner of inquiry given in the rules and in the section laid down to be that show cause notice will have to get served on the person in whose favour the allotment of lease was made or on his local representative. 8. The manner of inquiry given in the rules and in the section laid down to be that show cause notice will have to get served on the person in whose favour the allotment of lease was made or on his local representative. 8. Rule 115-I lays down that the provision of rules 115-D to 115-G shall mutatis mutandis apply to the proceeding for ejectment of the allottee referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 198 or any person claiming through him who retains possession of the land, allotment whereof has been cancelled. 9. No other procedure has been prescribed for starting cancellation of the lease or allotment proceedings of his own motion. 10. Thus it will be clear that no procedure has been laid down in the Act or in the Rules, for the Collector to follow if he wants to taken suo motu action, therefore, he cannot be debarred from ordering revenue authority subordinate to him for making preliminary inquiry about allotment as to whether provisions of the Act and Rules for making allotment were followed or not and for submitting their report with L.M.C. records. If such order is passed it cannot be said to be subsidiary judicial inquiry not prescribed and contemplated by law and as a matter of public policy resort to such reports cannot be prohibited or deprecated. Because such reports or the nucleus and the basis of which the Collector after applying his mind decides whether suo motu action of cancelling the Patta is to be ordered or not, such reports save much of the valuable time to Collector who is entrusted with large number of multifarious important duties of all kinds. 11. It has been laid down by learned D.S. Misra the then Member in Ali Bahadur Khan v. Insan Ali etc, 1981 A.W.C. 15 (Revenue) that the Collector instead of making enquiry himself into the matter sends it to the S.D.O. for inquiry, commits illegality. 12. It has been laid down in Ram Jhalak v. Ram Vinay, 1982 R.D. 97 as follows:- "The recommendation of the Additional Commissioner that the Collector should decide himself if suo motu action is to be taken (without any enquiry or report) is a tall order, the Collector must have a reasonable basis of sou motu action. 12. It has been laid down in Ram Jhalak v. Ram Vinay, 1982 R.D. 97 as follows:- "The recommendation of the Additional Commissioner that the Collector should decide himself if suo motu action is to be taken (without any enquiry or report) is a tall order, the Collector must have a reasonable basis of sou motu action. The Collector must have some reasonable basis for suo motu action and this necessitates an order for administrative enquiry and report, which, no doubt, must be confined to findings out facts by local inspection and consultation of village records, without reporting to a judicial enquiry after calling both the parties at Tahsil. In consequence, the order of the Collector as it is and in so far as it relates to the order to Tahsildar to enquire fully and report with recommendation cannot be sustained and need modification" 13. In Ali Bahadur Khan v. Insan Ali, etc. (supra) prohibiting Collector from asking for any report from subordinate revenue authorities for taking suo motu action under Section 198(4) of act I of 1951 in unwarranted by law and is against public policy which does not contemplate the orduous multifarious duties of absorbing nature of the Collector and leave the Collector without any basis for taking sou motu action of his own motion. 14. In Ram Jhalak v. Ram Vinay (supra) the scope of enquiry and report to be ordered by Collectors has been unnecessarily restricted although the principles for ordering the inquiry has been admitted. 15. There is no dispute that if a certain procedure has been laid down by any law to be followed it has been followed. Resort cannot be taken to circumvent it but if no procedure has been laid down as is the case under Section 198(4) wherein no procedure has been laid down in the Act or in the Rules for the Collector to follow for starting inquiry for cancellation of allotment of his own motion then no restriction can be imposed on him of wanting report from his subordinate revenue authorises about allotments of land by L.M.C. to be submitted along with L.M.C. records for making available to him for deciding whether it will be proper to resort to inquiry into allotment or not of his own motion as such procedure followed by him are legally not prohibited and conducive in the public interest and policy. 16. 16. In view of the matter the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner cannot be accepted and the arguments advanced in its favour are also not tenable. The order passed by the Learned Collector is within his jurisdiction and against it no revision is entertain-able hence this revision application is liable to be rejected and the order passed by the learned Additional Collector in liable to be maintained. 17. In view of the above, this revision application is rejected and the order passed by learned Additional Collector is maintained.