JUDGMENT H.N. Srivastava, Member - This reference has been made by the learned additional Commissioner, Varanasi, Division, Varanasi, by his order dated 18-4-1978 recommending that the order of the Assistant Collector, Ghazipur dated 29-10-1977 passed in a proceeding under Section 198 (4) of Z.A. & L.R. Act may be set aside and the revision may be allowed. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the revisionist, Kumar, filed an application under Section 198 (4) of the Z.A. & L.R. Act before the Collector, Ghazipur complaining that the patta has been illegally granted to the opposite party Roshan. It was contended that Roshan was not a landless agricultural labourer ; that the entire proceeding concerning the grant of patta was fictitious. Issue was also raised that the opposite party Roshan was a member of the L. M. C. when the patta was granted to him, but proper permission as required under Section 28 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act had not been obtained. The Collector by his order dated 29-10-1977 rejected the application of Kumar observing that the later has not been able to prove that the patta has been granted illegally to the opposite party, Roshan. Revision was filed against that order of the collector. The learned Additional Commissioner has referred the revision, with his recommendation that the patta may be cancelled and the revision may be allowed. 3. Objection has been filed on behalf of the opposite party. Roshan, against the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner. It has been contended that the interpretation of the learned Additional Commissioner that permission of the S.D.O. can not be taken as permission from the Collector under Section 28-C of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, is in-correct. It has been asserted that the S.D.O. under the rules can act on behalf of the Collector for granting permission under Section 28-C of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist. The counsel for the opposite party was not present even though he had sufficient notice of the date. 5. Two important points have come up for decision in the present case. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist. The counsel for the opposite party was not present even though he had sufficient notice of the date. 5. Two important points have come up for decision in the present case. Firstly, it may be pointed out that Section 198 (4) of the Z.A. & L.R. Act provides that the Collector may of his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment of land inquire in the manner prescribed into such allotment. In accordance with the above, in the case the Collector takes note of an application from any person aggrieved by an allotment, he has no option but to conduct an enquiry into such allotment. The rules are that when the Collector makes an enquiry under sub-Section (4) of Section 198 of Z.A. & L.R. Act, the L.M.C. and the allottee of land shall be made parties and given an opportunity of being heard before final orders are passed. 6. It thus followed that the Collector has not to treat the applicant as a complainant and place the burden of proving the contentions made by him entirely on him. He has to make a proper enquiry into the allotment by going through the records hearing the L.M.C. and the allottee etc. In the impugned order the Collector has rejected, the application observing that the applicant has not been able to prove the case against the opposite party. This is a wrong observation in so far as it was not for the applicant alone to prove the case against the opposite party. The Collector should have made an enquiry into the allotment in accordance with rules and should have made his conclusions on the basis of that enquiry. Second point that has been raised before me concerns the permission under Section 28-C of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act Section 29-C of Panchayat Raj Act reads as follows : "No member or office bearer of Gaon Panchayat or Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti shall, otherwise that with the permission in writing of the Collector, knowingly acquire or attempt to acquire or stipulate for or receive or continue to have himself or through a partner or otherwise any share or interest in any licence, lease, sale exchange, contract or employment with, by or on behalf of the Samiti concerned. The permission in accordance with the above section has to be given by the Collector. The definition of the Collector is given in Section 2 (E) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act which reads as follows :- "Collector" or "District Magistrate" or "Sub-Divisional Magistrate" with reference to a Gaon Sabha means the Collector, District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate of the district or the subdivision as the case may be, in which such Gaon Sabha is constituted ; and shall respectively include Additional Collector, Additional District Magistrate and Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate. 7. The Collector and the S.D.O. are two different authorities and I do not agree with the contention of the objector that the S. D. O. can give permission under Section 28-C of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act on behalf of the Collector, or the permission of the S. D. O. can be taken to be permission from the Collector. 8. I, therefore, agree with the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner that in the absence of a proper permission from the Collector, that is in contravention of Section 28-C of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, patta granted to the opposite party, Roshan, can not be treated to have been granted in a legal manner. 9. From the above Consideration I set aside the order of the Collector and also herewith cancel the patta granted to Roshan. The revision reference is decided accordingly.