JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member, (J.). - This is a revision against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated 4-9-1979 through which the revision filed against the order of the Collector dated 9-8-1979 was rejected. 2. The facts of this case in brief are that the revisionist filed an application under Rule 115 P of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 for the cancellation of patta for abadi site executed by the L.M.C. in favour of the opposite party. The Collector ordered to the S.D.O. to make an inquiry into the matter. The S.D.O. obtained the evidence of both the parties and submitted a report to the Collector recommending that the application be rejected and the revisionist be directed to file a regular suit. The Collector accordingly dismissed the application and ordered the revisionist to go in regular suit. A revision against this order was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on the ground that the order of the Collector was administrative in nature and no revision lay against such order. This revision has been preferred against the same order. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. So far as the question of the maintainability of the revision before the Additional Commissioner is concerned I find that the observation made by the learned Additional Commissioner is wholly against law. He did not care to peruse the provision of Rule 115 - P in which the Collector is required to make an enquiry by himself and to pass suitable orders in the said matter. Such order of the Collector is judicial in nature and a revision does lie against such order. The finding of the learned Addl. Commissioner that the order of the Collector was administrative in nature was, therefore, illegal and against law. His finding is, therefore, liable to be reversed in this connection. 5. Now as regards the procedure adopted by the Collector in sending inquiry to the S.D.O. I find that it too was illegal and against law. A court once seized of the matter has itself to make an inquiry and it cannot delegate its power to any other court for the purpose. No Jaw could be shown to me under which the Collector could direct the S.D.O. to make any inquiry in such matters. A court once seized of the matter has itself to make an inquiry and it cannot delegate its power to any other court for the purpose. No Jaw could be shown to me under which the Collector could direct the S.D.O. to make any inquiry in such matters. Consequently, the entire labour wrought by the S.D.O. was a wasteful expenditure of time and the Collector was not competent to give any finding on the basis of the report submitted by the S.D.O. In such circumstances the Collector did not exercise his jurisdiction properly and passed illegal order on the basis of the report of the S.D.O. His order, therefore, is liable to be reversed and the case deserves to be remanded back to him for retrial. 6. In view of the above discussion the revision is allowed. The orders passed by both the courts below are set aside and the case is remanded back to the Collector to decide $it afresh according to law after making the inquiry himself.