JUDGMENT Mr. S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a reference made by Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur dated November 21, 1985 whereby he has recommended that the order of the Additional Collector Azamgarh dated October 4, 1983 be set aside. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the supervisor Kanungo under the order of the S.D.O. executed a lease for 10 year for fixing rights in favour of the revisionist on December 22, 1982 and it was approved by the S.D.O. on February 4, 1983. The Gaon Sabha went up in person before the Collector against the order of the S.D.O. and the Assistant Collector allowed the revision and cancelled the lease executed in the favour of the revisionist. A revision was filed against Collector before the Additional Commissioner who has recommended to this court holding that the order of the Upper Collector be set aside since no revision or appeal lay before him against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. It was also held by him that the proceeding before the Additional Collector could not be treated as one under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act and for that reason as well the order is illegal and deserves to be set aside. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. It is borne out that the patta was executed as a matter of fact by the supervisor Kanugo on the orders of the S.D.O. This patta would therefore, be deemed to be executed by Sub-Divisional Officer himself under Para 62 of the Gaon Sabha Manual as amended by G.o. dated May 2, 1981. In this Government Order no provision has been made for cancellation of such Pattas and the Collector tool has not been assigned any power to hear any revision or appeal against such execution of Patta by the S.D.O. Consequently the Gaon Sabha was not empowered to challenge such Patta before the Collector either by preferring an appeal or revision or by going before him under Section 198(4) of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. The Collector, therefore, had no jurisdiction to cancel the Patta executed under Para 62 of the Goan Sabha Manual and, therefore, the order passed by him was wholly illegal and beyond jurisdiction and cannot be sustained, further the Additional Collector has committed another illegality. The Collector, therefore, had no jurisdiction to cancel the Patta executed under Para 62 of the Goan Sabha Manual and, therefore, the order passed by him was wholly illegal and beyond jurisdiction and cannot be sustained, further the Additional Collector has committed another illegality. He has disposed of the petition before him as revision which shows that he had proceeded under Section 331-A of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act in which he could dismiss the petition but he has no power to allow it. In case he came to the conclusion that the revision deserved to be conclusion that the revision deserved to be allowed he could have made a reference to the Board and could not have allowed the revision by himself. Such assumption of jurisdiction by the learned Additional Collector was beyond powers and was totally illegal. In such circumstances also his order cannot be upheld. The learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha could not show any provision in which the Additional Collector could accept the revision himself. 5. I, therefore, agree with the recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner and accept the reference and allow the revision and set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector dated October 4, 1983.