JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member - This is a revision against the judgment dated March 19, 1982 of the trial court by which it rejected the application for cancelling the Patta. The learned Additional Commissioner by his order dated October 11, 1982 recommended that the aforesaid order may be quashed. 2. Heard the learned counsels and per used the file. 3. The facts of the case are that proceedings under section 198 of U.P. Act 1 of 1951 started on the application of Sharif Ahmad. It is alleged that the land in dispute is Qabristan and it should not have been allotted to the revisionist by the allotment resolution dated December 31, 1975. It has also been alleged that due Munadi has not been done hence the allotment was not valid. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner has recommended for the quashing of the order of the trial court on the ground that the Munadi was not done properly and that the land was recorded as Qabristan and hance it could not be allotted. I am unable to accept the reasoning given by the learned Additional Commissioner. 5. It is clear from the order of the trial court that by the resolution dated December 31, 1975 the land was allotted to 246 persons and here only two person have been made parties by the applicant hence the validity of the resolution itself cannot be decided without hearing all the persons, who are the allottees of the land in question. In other words, the resolution dated December 31, 1975 will affect the rights of 246 person (which is not disputed by the revisionist here also). Hence such resolution cannot, be set aside without hearing all these persons. The learned counsel for the revisionist has also argued that a resolution in part may be cancelled so far as these two person are concerned, but this argument has got on force because once the resolution has been held to be illegal or without jurisdiction on the face of it, it will be ineffective as a whole and void-ab-initio and will automatically affect the right of all the persons. Hence the order in respect of some person cannot be passed in the circumstances of the present case. 6. Hence the order in respect of some person cannot be passed in the circumstances of the present case. 6. The learned counsel has also contended that suo moto action may be taken or notices to all the remaining person may be sent by this court and then action may be taken. So far as the question of suo moto action is concerned it is subjective discretion of the initial court which want to take such action. It cannot be imposed on that authority by any court, hence his argument in this point has got no force. So far as the impleadment of the remaining 244 persons is concerned it is also in no way tenable because they cannot be impleaded to this stage in this court and thus the order affecting their rights may be passed. The will be deprived of their opportunity to produce evidence or of the right to be heard in the two lower courts hence this contention is also baseless and it cannot be accepted in any way. 7. However, the merit of the resolution has not been discussed by this court and it is not in any way affecting the right of the applicant to file any other application and that will not be affected by the judgment of this court. 8. I therefore find no force in the revision and it is dismissed.