JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, Member. - The facts are on 23-11-1979 Ram Samujh and Ashrafi move for cancellation of lease under Section 198(4) Collector basti. The complaint is that allotment of plot No. 55, recorded in as banjar, in the name of Jagdeo is irregular. It is given out that no meeting of LMC was held ; no proclamation made, the procedure not followed. Also Banjar land is less than 30% in village Bhitya Kalan. An objection is filed that lease is a rebular. 2. Parties are given chance to lead evidence. On 13-11-1981 lease is cancelled. On 17-8-1984 revision is dismissed. So is revision filed here. 3. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The proceeding has not been conducted according to procedure. No alleged tenurial rights in land of applicant are decided. If lease is cancelled, land will re-vest in Gaon Sabha. Secondly, report of sub-divisional Officer is not admissible in evidence ; he has no jurisdiction to enquire and report 1981 AWC 5 (Revenue). When report of SDO is exclude there is little to sustain analysis and conclusion. The interpretation of Section 198(9) Z.A. and L.R. Act is incorrect. It means if, lease is otherwise valid with SDO's approval, the same shall not go down because the land is one under Section 132 ZA Act. Is lease valid in other respects? is land one under Section 132 Z.A. Act ? 5. In this enquiry, the duty of collector is to record finding on each requirement of a valid lease regardless of whether applicant raises it or not. So enquiry is to investigate whether process detailed in Rules 173 to 177 (2) Z.A. Rules is followed or not. This is real job. 6. It is said that Additional Commissioner has not decided revision on merits. It is proper to allow impleadment which is only an incidental error. Also the application for proper impleadment had been moved on 27-6-1984 which is within limitation. 7. Revision is allowed ; orders of court below are set aside. The case is remanded to Collector for disposal afresh on merits according to law.