JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, Member - The facts are: For cancellation of lease favouring Dinanath Gupta an application under Rule 115-P Z.A. rules is moved on 6.1.1977 by Sugriv Prasad in Collector's. The application has set forth the contention that lease dated 11.8.1975 is grossly irregular because allottee Dinanath Gupta owns substantial land in tenurial rights: 40 bighas. He owns several houses; one pucka house in Dhrumondganj village Deohat; the other in village Durjanipur and a new constructed one lac house at Jangi Road Mirzapur. Not this much alone. He is in trader engaged in a firm Raghunath and Company dealing in Biri leaves. It is complained that he lives in Mirzapur not in village Deohat. The relief to cancel the irregular lease dated 11.8.1975 has been prayed for. 2. The application is sent to Tehsil for enquiry and report. Supervisor Kanungo is supporting almost all the allegations. On 30.9.1977 Tahsildar writes a report that allottee is not a member of schedule caste; he owns a pucka house in village Drumondganj; he is proud owner of 47 bighas of land. The lease is infected in the absence of prior permission of Sub-Divisional Officer. 3. On 8.6.1978 an objection in rebuttal is filed by Dinanath Gupta. The allegations are all desired. No house in village Drumondganj or in Durjanipur. He claims that lease was executed at the instance of Additional Collector. In 1976 an enquiry for cancellation was made at the instance of his elder broth Harso Ram and his own father. The same ended in dismissal as lease was found regular. Also the application is time barred. The relief to dismiss the application has been prayed for. On 8.8.1978 Chairman, Land Management Committee files a reply in support of lease. He clarifies that an area of 220 Sp. yard of plot No. 681 was allotted on 9.8.1975. Parties ere given chance to lead evidence and file documents. On 9.12.1975 Shri Dhananjai Singh, Additional Collector, Mirzapur enters an order of cancellation of lease. 4. Dinanath Gupta lodges a revision in Commissioner's. On 1.8.1990 Additional Commissioner submits a reference with his recommendation to set aside Additional Collector's dated 9.12.1985; the end effect is to dismiss the application. The reference is docketed here for disposal. 5. Heard the counsel for and against the revision. 6. 4. Dinanath Gupta lodges a revision in Commissioner's. On 1.8.1990 Additional Commissioner submits a reference with his recommendation to set aside Additional Collector's dated 9.12.1985; the end effect is to dismiss the application. The reference is docketed here for disposal. 5. Heard the counsel for and against the revision. 6. Additional Collector has recorded a conclusive finding that Dinanath Gupta is not a person eligible for allotment of a housing site. There is considerable body of evidence to sustain this opinion. Sugriv Prasad had listed his property as below. In village Bhasar Balai Khatoni 1375 Fasli records an area 20-12-0: Khata No. 167 area 1-0-0, Khata No. 168 area 1-9-0 of village Deohat Khatoni 1375 Falsi Khata No. 92 has an area 20-9-0. In the name of his minor sons Vindo Kumar and Pramod Kumar Khatoni 1375 Falsi in Khata No. 17 respecting village Mahuguri is noted an area 3-6-0. Further, more, he pleads that allottee has three houses; a new one lac constructed several story high in Jangi High Mirzapur City. A witness for is Kolai. He pleaded his oath to testify that Dinanath Gupta is living at Mirzapur for the last 10 years. The allottee site has a wooden shak in possession of a tenant on rent. He affirms that Dinanath Gupta has land and houses in the name of his wife and minor children at several places. Applicant Sugriv Prasad testified that allottee has let out his new construction in Drumondganj. Dinanath Gupta has moved an application to Additional Collector Mirzapur to urge him to direct Land Management Committee to allot the land. In the process of allotment Additional Collector has no prescribed role. Still he directs that his case should be considered in meeting. No wonder this influenced Land Management Committee to favour him even though clearly not an eligible person. Dinanath Gupta has placed on file his application 13.8.1975. This is on his printed pad. His name printed is: Dinanath Gupta HMB registered No. 6374/H. Is this prove of his preferential claim as an indigent man? It appears from his several applications that he has taken unauthorised possession of the land and was urging for entry of his name. His request is always rejected. In one application he claims that MLA's and an M.P. are supporting his claim. This is in qualification for allotment. It appears from his several applications that he has taken unauthorised possession of the land and was urging for entry of his name. His request is always rejected. In one application he claims that MLA's and an M.P. are supporting his claim. This is in qualification for allotment. My anxious concern is to evaluate whether allotment has been regular or not. It has been clearly shown that Dinanath Gupta is not an eligible, person and he ordinarily lives at his one lac newly constructed pucka house at Mirzapur. He is not resident of circle. 7. Additional Commissioner makes a point that an earlier application of Sheo Kumar for cancellation was dismissed on 20.1.1977. So a second application is barred by estoppel. This is not true. Application of Sheo Kumar was never decided on merit; it was dismissed in default on 20.1.1977. This comes to little. Also in that proceeding Sugriv Prasad was not a party. So principle of res judicata will not hold. Additional Commissioner notes several rulings on estoppel but none is in point. It is rightly noticed that proceeding is an enquiry. But did not see the implication of this truth. In an enquiry the burden is Collector's to record findings on each requirement of a valid lease; irrespective of whether parties take up or not all issues. This will not mean that application of Sugriv Prasad is not maintainable; 1976 RD 311. So this ends in despair to allottee. 8. A point is raised whether Sub-Divisional Officer's prior permission for abadi site is necessary or not. This requirement comes from 1.11.1975. In this case the allotment is dated 11.8.1975. Hence Sub-Divisional Officer's prior permission is not necessary for a valid lease. Whether process of execution of lease is regular or not? There has to be announcement by beat of drum in the village telling the exact location of the site to be allotted, the time, the date and venue of allotment. Where is proof of compliance of Rule 115-N-C General-I of Z.A. Rules 7. There is a certificate by members of Land Management Committee that he be given lease of land because he was Sarpanch of Nyay Panchayat and is presently a member. This is to muster support for him. Also there is an application by Daya Sagar Gupta, Pradhan pleading that abadi site be surely given to Dinanath Gupta. There is a certificate by members of Land Management Committee that he be given lease of land because he was Sarpanch of Nyay Panchayat and is presently a member. This is to muster support for him. Also there is an application by Daya Sagar Gupta, Pradhan pleading that abadi site be surely given to Dinanath Gupta. All this evidence seems to have been made up; the evidence is contained in the documents. At the time of allotment no provision was for Sub-Divisional officer's prior permission. Applicant has mistakenly made a point that the lease is invalid on this score. To rebut this a copy of application of Pradhan on 10.8.1975 recites that for Abadi site no permission is necessary. How on 10.8.1975 could one visualise that permission of Sub-Divisional Officer will become operative in future. A certified copy of agenda is filed. Where is the list of persons placing them in an order of preference? In the absence thereof how Land Management Committee has decided to allot favouring Dinanath Gupta. Whether it was decided by draw of lots? Whether more persons had' expressed a desire to take the land? The certificates, of allotment in Z.A. Form 49-F is prepared in two parts. The main certificate is given to allottee and its counter-part remains with Land Management Committee for record. The certificate dated 11.8.75 is filed. This is in Form 58 issued in case of agricultural leases under Rule 176 Z.A. Rules. This raises grave suspicion that it has been recently prepared not by Lekhpal who can discriminate between two kinds of Forms. There is no attestation by a revenue official. 9. Additional Commissioner has strongly relied on 1984 R.D. 405 to state that Sugriv Prasad is not an aggrieved person. I am sorry that he did not read the precedent. In this allotment was made by Sub-Divisional Officer and proceeding was not under Section 198 (4) Z.A. Act. Here the lease is executed by Land Management Committee and proceeding is under Rule 115-N. How much removed the premises are. He has noted that Sugriv Prasad is not an aggrieved person. I am not impressed. In this allotment was made by Sub-Divisional Officer and proceeding was not under Section 198 (4) Z.A. Act. Here the lease is executed by Land Management Committee and proceeding is under Rule 115-N. How much removed the premises are. He has noted that Sugriv Prasad is not an aggrieved person. I am not impressed. 1976 (1) SCR 306 is clear: "The test, is whether the words" person aggrieved" includes a person who has a genuine grievance because an order has been made which prejudically affects his interest." In case of 1961 AC 617 Lord Denning observes: "The words "person aggrieved" are of wide import and should not be subjected to a restrictive interpretation. They do not include, of course a mere busy body who is interfering in things which do not concern him, but they include a person who has a genuine grievance because an order has been made which prejudicially affects his interest: The legal position is elaborated in 1977 R.D. 15. Here a rank outsider, A man of considerable recourses, influence and status engaged in business of Birir is allotted land in the circle of Sugriv Prasad. All the villagers have a genuine grievance and are much prejudicially affected by irregular allotment. Additional Commissioner's treatment is cavallor. The application is not for Sugriv Prasad's private interest and cancellation will not conver any benefit on him: 1977 R.D. 309, 1980 R.D. 145. In the latter case, it has been mediated that where there is usurpation of Gaon-Sabha Land, Collector is to take suo moto action. Where application is beyond time or person is not aggrieved the action taken shall be suo moto. On the application of Sugriv Prasad Collector has got the information of an irregular allotment. 1975 R.D. 43 elucidates that where allottee is not formerly given a notice but has full opportunity to file objection, produce evidence there shall be no material irregularity if no miscarriage of justice has occurred. 1977 R.D. 135. With this I close. 10. On a consideration of all, the reference by Additional Commissioner is misconceived and is rejected. The order of cancellation is well founded in law and facts. The land shall-revest in Gaon Sabha. Allottee's name be expunged.'