JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member. - This is a revision against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad dated 25-8-1984 dismissing the revision of the pattedars Param Das and Tedhey against the order of the Additional Collector Gonda dated 25-11-1984 cancelling their patta on the application of opposite parties Pyare and Din Dyal's father Bawur. 2. An application under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 was given by Bawur and Pyare to the Tahsildar alleging that they are Chamar and that their names are recorded in Zeman 4 over the disputed land but the same has been allotted by the L.M.C. in favour of some person about which a application was given by the applicant to the S.D.M. but nothing has been done. On this application the Tahsildar made an inquiry and submitted his report to the Additional Collector for the cancellation of the pattas on the ground that the complainants were Harijans and they had landless than 31/8 acres. On this report the Additional Collector started sou motu action and issued notice to the pattedars. 3. The pattedars have filed an objection that the land had been allotted to them properly after all initial formalities and their names have also been mutated. 4. The learned Additional Collector cancelled the patta and directed the pattedars to file a regular suit upholding the title of Bawur and Pyarey under Section 122-B (4-F) ZA and LR Act. 5. The revision filed against that order was also dismissed, hence this revision. 6. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the learned Additional Collector has not cancelled the patta on any irregularity having been caused in the procedure but has cancelled them merely on the ground that complainants Bawur and Pyare had perfected their rights under Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Act. No. 1 of 1951 which finding was beyond the purview of Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 and that at best he could direct the complainant to file a regular suit. No. 1 of 1951 which finding was beyond the purview of Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 and that at best he could direct the complainant to file a regular suit. It was also argued that the learned Additional Collector did not himself record any evidence and based his judgment on the evidence recorded by the Tahsildar which procedure is against law and, therefore, his judgment cannot stand and must be quashed and for the same reason the judgment of the learned Additional Commissioner also deserves to be set aside. 8. I find force in the argument so advanced before me. It is apparent from the record that the learned Additional Collector did not himself take any evidence and based his judgment merely on the evidence recorded by the Tahsildar which procedure was entirely illegal and, therefore, his judgment cannot stand on this basis alone. Further, the Additional Collector did not find any irregularity in the procedure but merely cancelled the patta on the ground of the provision of Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. In this case he was not concerned with the rights of title of any third party specially when an entry only in Zaman 4 was mentioned in the record in favour of the complainants. In case the complainants had perfected their title the land did not remain the property of the Gaon Sabha and, therefore, if any patta was executed it was void and, therefore, there was no question of its cancellation under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The best course open for the complainant was to have gone in regular suit to get his title declared and in that event if the patta was void it could have easily been avoided or overlooked by the revenue courts. The order for cancellation of the patta is wholly illegal and cannot be maintained. The learned Additional Commissioner also failed to examine the propriety of the patta and the effect of Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, hence his order also, therefore cannot be allowed to stand. 9. In the result this revision is allowed. The impugned orders passed by both the courts below are set aside. The complainants Bawur and Pyare should better file a regular suit for the declaration of their title. 9. In the result this revision is allowed. The impugned orders passed by both the courts below are set aside. The complainants Bawur and Pyare should better file a regular suit for the declaration of their title. If they fee that they have perfected their title under Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Act. No. 1 of 1951.