JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member. - This is a reference made by Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated 20-7-1974 through which he has recommended that the revision be allowed and the order dated 27-9-73 passed by the S.D.O. Baghpat be set aside on the ground that the S.D.O. had no authority to cancel the allotment on that date. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 3. It transpires that some pattas for construction of houses were made in favour of the revisionist by the Land Management Committee by its resolution dated 25-11-1972. Subsequently the villagers raised an objection before the S.D.O. alleging that no proper procedure had been applied for making the allotment. The S.D.O. obtained the report of the Tahsildar who submitted that no approval from the S.D.O had yet been obtained by the Land Management Committee about the resolution and that there were some irregularities, hence the resolution should not be accepted. In view of such report the learned S.D.O. by his order dated 27-9-1973 disapproved the resolution dated 25-11-1972 and ordered that fresh allotment according to rules be made. 4. The allotees went up in revision before the Additional Commissioner who under the impression that it was a matter for the cancellation of leases, held that the S.D.O. had no authority to cancel the same and, therefore, he has recommended to this court to allow the revision and to set aside the order of the S.D.O, The learned D.G.C. (R) contended that the reference has been made on wrong assumption of facts because the learned Additional Commissioner did not understand the merits of the case properly and even though the S.D.O. had merely disapproved the resolution, the learned Additional Commissioner took it a case of cancellation of the lease and that is why he has made this reference which is liable to be rejected. He further argued that a mere resolution of the L.M.C. has no value unless it is approved by the S.D.O. and only after the approval leases can be said to have been made in favour of the allottees. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the order of the Additional Commissioner is correct and that it is actually a matter of cancellation of lease and not mere disapproval of the resolution of the Land Management Committee, hence the reference must be accepted. 6. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the order of the Additional Commissioner is correct and that it is actually a matter of cancellation of lease and not mere disapproval of the resolution of the Land Management Committee, hence the reference must be accepted. 6. After going through the record, I find that the contention of the learned D.G.C. is not without force. The learned counsel for the revisionist could not put forward any document or evidence by which it could be proved that the resolution of the Land Management Committee had ever been approved by the S.D.O. The report of the Tahsildar and other documents also clearly indicate that the matter was still pending for consideration by the S.D.O. for his approval hence it was within the latter's jurisdiction to grant an approval to the resolution or to disapprove the same. It was another thing if his approval had already been obtained arid then in that case no jurisdiction could have been left to him either to reconsider the question of approval or to cancel the leases in which case the authority vested only in the Collector. However in the instant case since the S.D.O. was required to give his approval or disapproval the impugned order passed by him cannot be said to be beyond his jurisdiction and, therefore, the finding of the learned Additional Commissioner is against the facts on record and cannot be accepted. 7. It may however be pointed out that the impugned order passed by the S.D.O. cannot be called an order within the eye of law because it is cursory and slip-shod. The learned S.D.O. has not given any reasons on which his order is based. The order of disapproval of the resolution is a judicial one and must be passed after hearing both the parties and after taking evidence. The learned S.D.O. did not adopt proper procedure nor did he apply his judicial mind to the facts of this case and merely passed an administrative type of order on the basis of the report of the Tahsildar which can hardly be justified in such a case. His order, therefore, even though the reference has to be rejected, cannot stand and he must pass fresh order after hearing both the parties and after recording evidence. 8. His order, therefore, even though the reference has to be rejected, cannot stand and he must pass fresh order after hearing both the parties and after recording evidence. 8. In view of the above discussion, the reference is rejected but the revision is allowed and the order of the S.D.O. dated 27-9-1973 is set aside and the case is remanded back to him to decide it afresh according to law as per directions contained above.