JUDGMENT H.N. Srivastav, Member - These are two revision petitions against the order of the learned Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division dated 6-9-1975 in revision filed before him against the order of the learned Additional Collector Ghazipur dated 2-12-1974. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 1-1-1973 the Pradhan of the concerned Gaon Sabha filed a complaint under Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act for cancellation of the patta granted to the revisionists on 12-6-1970. The application was contested by the revisionists/objectors. On enquiry it had come to light that the lessees are residents of villages outside the circle of the L.M.C. Hakimpur. It was also noticed that the pattas were granted to wives of the two lekhpals and wife of the kanungo. No, list of landless agricultural labourers was prepared. 3. Two other issues were raised before the learned trial court, firstly that the application under Section 198 (3) of the Act filed by Mahesh on 1-1-1973 was filed much after the expiry of the limitation period of six months. The learned trial court held on the above issue that the period of limitation should run from the date knowledge of execution of lease and not from the execution of the lease itself. He also observed that the former Pradhan had colluded in the execution of the irregular leases. The second issue that was raised before the learned trial court was that the Pradhan was not an aggrieved party and was, therefore, not entitled to move an application under Section 198 (3) of the Act. On this, the learned trial court gave a finding that since under the changed law the SDO has become final authority for the grant of leases, the Pradhan of the L.M.C. can be deemed to be an aggrieved person by the order of the SDO and, therefore, he felt that the Pradhan can apply for cancellation of the lease under Section 198 (3) of the Act. We concluded that the lease have been granted in an irregular manner and, therefore, ordered for their cancellation. The objectors went in revision before the learned Additional Commissioner who dismissed the revision on 6-9-1975, agreeing with the findings of the learned trial court. We concluded that the lease have been granted in an irregular manner and, therefore, ordered for their cancellation. The objectors went in revision before the learned Additional Commissioner who dismissed the revision on 6-9-1975, agreeing with the findings of the learned trial court. We also observed that the learned trial court has acted of his own taking up an enquiry under Section 198 (3) of the Act, and, therefore, he brushed aside the issue raised by the revisionist that the Pradhan was not entitled to file the application. 4. Two revision petitions have been filed against the order of the courts below, one no. 111 is by Prabhoo and seven others and revision No. 14 is by Jokhan. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. The learned counsel for the revisionist has raised some important legal issues during his detailed arguments. Firstly, it has been argued that the learned Additional Collector (trial court) was taken cognisance of the application filed by Pradhan of the concerned Gaon Sabha and was not commenced an enquiry under Section 198 (3) of the Act of his own as wrongly concluded by the learned Additional Commissioner. We argued that the learned trial court cannot be said to have taken action of his own (suo moto) because the basic ingredients indicating that suo moto action has been taken are not present in the instant case. We urged that for taking suo moto action the learned Additional Collector should have first made a preliminary enquiry and on apprehension that irregularities had been committed in the allotment, should have issue a show cause notice giving out that the action is being taken suo-moto for the enquiry and cancellation of the patta. We cited a division Bench ruling reported in 1979 AWC 42 (Rev.). 5. His second argument was that the Pradhan/Chairman of the L.M.C. who had himself moved a resolution for grant of patta cannot move for cancellation of that patta. On the above issue, the learned counsel for the revisionist has cited 1966 RD 203 wherein the learned Judge High Court has held that it is not open to a subsequent Pradhan to file an application under Section 198(3) of the Act. We cannot be held to be an aggrieved party. On the above issue, the learned counsel for the revisionist has cited 1966 RD 203 wherein the learned Judge High Court has held that it is not open to a subsequent Pradhan to file an application under Section 198(3) of the Act. We cannot be held to be an aggrieved party. We also cited 1973 RD 82 wherein it has been held that law does not give authority to the subsequent L.M.C. to alter or cancel the decisions of the previous L.M.C.A third issue that was raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist was that though the patta by the same resolution was granted to several other persons, only 18 not them were issued notices and pattas of only 18 persons were cancelled. We argued further that the patta was cancelled on several grounds including that list of landless agricultural labourers was not prepared and the priority prescribed under Section 198 was not observed. We argued that it was an illegality which was not confined to individual lease holder but encompassed all the lease holders granted leases through that order and resolution and, therefore, notices should have been issued to all the lease holders. Since notices had not been issued to all the lease holders, the provision of rule 178-A (2) of the Rules has not been followed and the order of the learned trial court cancelling the lease can be treated as void. 6. In case of revisionist Jokhan the learned counsel for the revisionist has pointed out that he was an ex-military personnel. We also pointed out a Government order wherein a direction has been issued the Collector that the proceedings of cancellation of lease in respect of ex-military personnel will not be taken suo moto. Accordingly, he argued that at least in case of Jokhan the Collector could not have taken up a proceeding of his own. 7. The learned counsel for the State and Gaon Sabha contested the views put up by the learned counsel for the revisionists as above. His arguments will be taken up for consideration while deciding the above issues one by one. In the judgment of the Division Bench of the Board reported in 1979 AWC 72 (Rev.) a detailed consideration has been given to the question as to which proceeding should be taken as a proceeding initiated suo-moto by the concerned authority under Section 198 (3) of the Act. In the judgment of the Division Bench of the Board reported in 1979 AWC 72 (Rev.) a detailed consideration has been given to the question as to which proceeding should be taken as a proceeding initiated suo-moto by the concerned authority under Section 198 (3) of the Act. It has rightly been distinguished that whereas on an application filed by an aggrieved party within 6 months from the date of the order of Collector the collector shall have to make an enquiry as provided under law. We has no other option. But when he receives information otherwise regarding irregularities in the grant of particular patta it lies within his discretion to commence enquiry or not. The legislature with purpose has used the word 'may' in the section. Since in the latter case, the collector has to make up his mind before commencing an enquiry under Section 198 (3) he should either get convinced from the facts brought to his notices or should conduct a preliminary enquiry for ascertaining if any prima facie case exists regarding illegality or irregularity in the grant of patta. Only on getting convinced that such an irregularity may have been committed, the collector has to commence the enquiry. It was also discussed that while commencing such an enquiry of his own the collector has to issue a notice to the aggrieved party. It has been emphasised that issue of such a notice is of utmost importance and that suo-moto commencement of proceedings by the enquiring authority cannot be taken automatically as it would validate all the proceedings initiated on an application filed after the expiry of limitation period by the aggrieved persons also. The conclusion drawn as above are quite convincing and give a clear exposition to the question under consideration. No proceeding can be taken as to have commenced suo-moto unless the enquiring officer has made a note saying that he has proceeded with that enquiry suo-moto. If such a mention has not been made by the enquiring officer, the enquiry made by him cannot be taken to have commenced of his own (suo-moto). 8. No proceeding can be taken as to have commenced suo-moto unless the enquiring officer has made a note saying that he has proceeded with that enquiry suo-moto. If such a mention has not been made by the enquiring officer, the enquiry made by him cannot be taken to have commenced of his own (suo-moto). 8. In respect of second issue raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist if the Pradhan (in the instant case another Pradhan elected afterwards) can file an application under Section 198 (3) of the Act for cancellation of the lease granted by the earlier L.M.C. The learned counsel for the State argued that the Pradhan has dual capacity. He is the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha as well as Chairman of the L.M.C. whereas as the Chairman L.M.C., he is certainly not entitled to challenge, the order of the previous L.M.C, as Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha he is entitled to look into the matter of the L.M.C. and if the interest of the Gaon Sabha has been jeopardised, he can certainly file an application under Section 198 (3) of the Act as an aggrieved party. The above argument is based on a wrong logic. The L.M.C. is nothing but a committee of the Gaon Sabha and its action cannot be distinguished from that of the action of the Gaon Sabha. In fact, the L.M.C. acts on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. Therefore, to say that the Gaon Sabha and L.M.C. are two independent bodies and that the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha and the Chairman of the L.M.C. can be distinguished from each other is not correct. This argument, therefore, does not carry any weight. In fact, the principle has been solidly laid down in this respect in 1966 RD 203 wherein the Hon'ble Judge High Court has held that it is the L.M.C. which is the administrative body of the Gaon Sabha which has to make the allotment. When that body has once made the allotment it is no longer open to a subsequent Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha, who may have a different view, to make an application under Section 198 (3) of the Act. When that body has once made the allotment it is no longer open to a subsequent Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha, who may have a different view, to make an application under Section 198 (3) of the Act. In any case, an application from the Pradhan cannot be treated as an application from an aggrieved person and therefore the enquiring officer has not to take action in respect of an application from the Pradhan for cancellation of the patta under that part of the provision of Section 198 (3) [subsequently Section 198(4)] of the Act under which the collector has to take action if an application has been received from an aggrieved party. However, if an irregularity is detected by the Pradhan in the allotment of patta he can certainly bring it to the notice of the collector and the collector may exercising his powers commence enquiry of his own and take action in the matter. There is nothing in law to stop the collector from enquiring of his own into an allotment regarding which irregularities are brought to his knowledge and from taking suitable action in the matter. 9. In respect of the third issue raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist, if action can be taken only in respect of some of the lessees out of a larger number of lessees granted patta through the same proceeding and in accordance with the same resolution, a detailed discussion is required. The grant of lease involves proceedings that are general in nature and also these proceedings involves certain conditions that are confined to individual lessees. The order of preference as prescribed under Section 198 of the Act, issue of proclamation, resolution of the Gaon Sabha are steps that have to be observed uniformally for the grant of patta to all the lease holders involved in a single order. However, the eligibility of person for the grant of patta, i.e., is being a landless agricultural labourer etc., is an individual factor which can disqualify a lessee from grant of patta. However, the eligibility of person for the grant of patta, i.e., is being a landless agricultural labourer etc., is an individual factor which can disqualify a lessee from grant of patta. In case a lease in respect of some of the persons (out of several persons) granted patta by the same proceeding is challenged on the grounds that involve non-observance of procedure laid down for the grant of patta, the interest of all other lessees gets involved and, therefore, in such a case notices have to be issued under rule 178-A (2) to all the lease holders irrespective of the fact if leases in respect of the persons have been challenged or not. In case, however, the leases of some of the persons out of several persons granted leases through a single proceeding has been challenged on the ground that those persons are not eligible for grant of lease, in that case the interest of other lessees is not involved and, therefore, notice to other lessees need not be issued under rule 178-A (2) of the rules. However, while examining the lease order, it is rare that only individual factors get involved. In fact, the entire lease becomes the subject matter of the enquiry including both procedural and individual factors. Therefore, in the normal course whenever leases granted only to some of the persons out of a larger number of persons granted leases by the same proceeding and order is challenged and an enquiry is commenced into those leases, it would be just to issue notices to all the lessees effected by that order of lease. Further, if irregularities are detected in the grant of leases, the order of the enquiring officer should be made applicable to all those lessees and not only to some of them. 10. In the instant case, the learned trial court has observed that the list of landless agricultural labourers has not been prepared and the priority as prescribed under Section 198 of the Act has not been followed. There are procedural irregularities and if proved will render the entire proceeding for the grant of the leases invalid both in respect of the persons against whom the application has been filed and in respect of persons who have been left out from the application but to whom also leases were granted by the same proceeding. There are procedural irregularities and if proved will render the entire proceeding for the grant of the leases invalid both in respect of the persons against whom the application has been filed and in respect of persons who have been left out from the application but to whom also leases were granted by the same proceeding. The wording of rule 178-A (3) has to be carefully noticed in this respect. It reads as follows : "Where the collector makes an enquiry under sub-section (4) of Section 198 the LMC and the allottee of the land shall be made parties and given an opportunity of being heard before final orders are passed." By passing an order in respect of procedural lapses in the grant of lease the enquiring officer has actually passed orders in respect of the allotment of those lessees also who have not been covered by the notice. That order is certainly against the lessees that have been left out. Therefore, the order cannot be held to be valid in terms of rule 178-A (2) of the rules. 11. In the instant case, out of 69 persons granted leases by the same resolution, proceeding and order leases of only 18 persons were cancelled. Notices were not even issued to lessees other than 18 lessees whose leases were cancelled although a finding against the allotment of the leases granted to other persons has been made. Such a finding will not be taken as legally correct if notice had not been issued to other effected lessees also and opportunity has not been given to them to be heard. 12. In respect of the issue raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist Jokhan that he being an ex-military personnel, in view of the order of the Government, the collector could not have taken up cancellation proceedings of his lease suo moto. I am not convinced with the argument. The learned counsel has shown me a photostat copy of some Government order. We has not been able to show me any rule or amendment in the Act itself in this respect. Even if it is admitted that such a Government order exists, it cannot over-ride the powers conferred upon the courts through an Act. The learned counsel has shown me a photostat copy of some Government order. We has not been able to show me any rule or amendment in the Act itself in this respect. Even if it is admitted that such a Government order exists, it cannot over-ride the powers conferred upon the courts through an Act. Section 198 (3) (now Section 198(4) of the Act) empowers the collector to take action of his own and enquire in respect of any allotment and if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular, he may cancel that allotment. No rider or restriction has been imposed on the collector in the exercise of his powers as mentioned above. No exception has to be made, therefore, in case of ex-military personnel under Section 198 (3) [now 198 (4) of the Act.] 13. Lastly, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the Board is not empowered to direct the trial court to take action suo-moto under Section 198 (4) of the Act. It has been argued that it is only the collector who has a discretion to commence an enquiry of his own under Section 198 (4) of the Act and such an enquiry cannot be imposed on the collector by the superior court. I am not in agreement with the view expressed by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The Board has been empowered with comprehensively wide powers under Section 333 of the Act and while issuing order, it can direct the subordinate court to take such action as it thinks fit. The collector exercises direction under Section 198 (4) in commencing enquiry of his own not in an arbitrary manner but he exercises discretion in a judicial manner and this order, as laid down under law can be examined under Section 333 of the Act. It is certainly incorrect to conceive that only a part of the order can be examined and some part of that order cannot be examined. The entire order under Section 198 (4) including the decision of commencing an enquiry is an order which can be judicially examined by the Board. Therefore, I hold that the Board can issue directions asking the collector to enquire into the matter suo-moto. 14. From the considerations of the facts and issues discussed above, I am convinced that the order of the learned Additional Collector suffers from several irregularities. Therefore, I hold that the Board can issue directions asking the collector to enquire into the matter suo-moto. 14. From the considerations of the facts and issues discussed above, I am convinced that the order of the learned Additional Collector suffers from several irregularities. The enquiry conducted by the learned Additional Collector cannot be held to have commenced suo-moto. The learned Additional Collector has obviously commenced enquiry on the application of the Pradhan (supported by a resolution) taking him as an aggrieved party which he could not have done. Secondly, he has proceeded to cancel the patta in respect of some of the lessees on the ground that affects all the lessees granted patta through the same resolution, proceeding and the order. This order has been passed in contravention of rule 178-A (2) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules. Thus, material irregularity has been committed by the learned Additional Collector in the exercise of it jurisdiction. The learned Additional Commissioner too has not been able to appreciate the issues raised before him and has written a judgment without covering all the issues involved. 15. In view of the above, I set aside the orders of the learned Additional Collector and learned Additional Commissioner. The case is remanded back to the learned Collector for proceeding with the enquiry under Section 198 (4) of the Act in accordance with the law as pointed out above. The revision petitions are decided accordingly. 16. This order shall govern revision petition Nos. Ill and 14 of 1975-76/Ghazipur.