JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 8-2-84 passed by Sri S.K. Ahmad, Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, rejecting Revision no. 13 of 1982-83 filed against the order dated 2-3-83 passed by the A.D.M. (Executive), Agra in case no. 1 of 1982-83. 2. Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that Bishambhar Dayal moved an application before the Collector, Agra, alleging the Khachera and 13 other persons were allotted land out of plot no. 171/876, area 14 Biswa situate at village Bijauli, pargana Wah, district Agra and that their leases be cancelled. Objections were filed by Khachera and others and also on behalf of Gaon Sabha. The learned trial court passed an order that the land belonged to Gaon Sabha and that the proceedings be dropped, with that observation that the file be sent to Tahsildar for making a local inspection and an enquiry so that suo moto proceedings could be taken against those allottee's in whoso favour the allotments were done with irregularities, and that ho should also examine whether any part of the land belonged to the application. 3. The learned Additional Commissioner held that no final orders were passed in the case and, hence, there was no occasion for filing a revision against the order of the Additional Collector. 4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the power for making an Inquiry in respect of cancellation of allotments under Rule 115-P of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Rules rests with the Collector and the learned Additional Collector committed a jurisdictional error in sending the case to the Tahsildar for making an inquiry into the irregularities, if any, committed in the allotments. The learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the Collector has committed no error of law in sending the matter back to the Tahsildar for an inquiry. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the Collector has committed no error of law in sending the matter back to the Tahsildar for an inquiry. 6. It appears that an application was moved by Bishambhar Dayal alleging that the allotments made in favour of Khachera and others suffered from illegalities that no approval was obtained from the Sub-Divisional officer for execution of patta that allotments were made in favour of members of land Managements committee and no permission as required under Section 28 of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act was obtained from the Collector, and that the allottee's were not landless agricultural labourer. It was also alleged by Bishambhar Dayal that the land was in his possession and it did not belong to Gaon Sabha. An objection was filed by Khachera alleging that the land belonged to the Gaon Sabha, that the land was allotted in 1977 and the allottee's had constructed pucca houses. Other persons also filed objections alleging that approval of the Sub Divisional officer had been obtained on 20-1-78 in respect of allotments made on 16-11-77 in respect of Ram Sahai, Tej Singh, Shankerlal, Nathuram, Surajpal, Ramsewak, Rajkumar, Atar Singh, Ram Prakash and Santlal, and the approval of Sub Divisional Officer was obtained on 2-4-79 in respect of allotments made on 12-9-78 in favour of Kamta, Nathuram, Ram Bharose and Sarwati. 7. Under rule 115-P of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Rules, the Collector may of his own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved by any order of allotment of land under 115-L or 115-M, proceed to make an inquiry in the manner given in sub-rules (2), (3) and (4) of the said rule. Rule 115-P reads as under :- "R. 115-P. (1) The Collector may, of his own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved by any order of allotment of land under rule 115-L or 115-M proceed to make an enquiry in the manner given hereunder : - (2) The allottee and land Management committee shall be necessary parties to all such cases. (3) The Collector on the application of any party or otherwise may pass suitable interim orders at any time before the final disposal of the case. (4) The Collector shall call upon all persons interested in the order of allotment to appear and present their case before him. (3) The Collector on the application of any party or otherwise may pass suitable interim orders at any time before the final disposal of the case. (4) The Collector shall call upon all persons interested in the order of allotment to appear and present their case before him. It shall not be necessary to record evidence but the memo of the day to day inquiry shall be kept on record by the Collector. On making inquiries, if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular, he may cancel the allotments and thereupon the right, title and Interest of the allottee and of every other person claiming through him in the land shall lease. (5) The order of the Collector under the preceding sub-rule shall be final". 8. I find that in the instant case the learned Additional Collector adopted a unique method of dispensing with the inquiry that was required of him under the provisions of rule 115-P. He should have proceeded in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-rules (2), (3) and (4) of Rule 115-P of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Rules. The view of the learned Additional Commissioner is obviously wrong when he says that the Additional Collector has sent for an inquiry from the Tahsildar. Under the provisions of law, the Collector has no option except to proceed in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 115-P. The learned Additional Collector has acted with utter ignorance of law and has committed a material irregularity in dropping the proceedings and sending the file to Tahsildar for inquiry. In these proceedings, Tahsildar has no authority to proceed with any inquiry. The rules make it abundantly clear that on the application of any person aggrieved by an order of allotment of land under Rules 115-L and 115-M, the Collector will proceed for making an inquiry the modes of which are contained in sub-rules (2), (3) and (4) of Rule 115-P. In view of this, there is force in the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the revisionist. Consequently, the orders passed by both the courts below are quashed. The learned Collector is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with the procedure laid down in sub-rules (2), (3) and (4) of Rule 115-P of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules. The parties will appear before him on April 15, 1986.