Two fold prayers have been made in this writ petition which has been placed for Admission: (i) to command the respondents not to initiate any enquiry against the petitioner except in accordance with law in the matter of grant of 12 Pattas to them by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Handia, District Allahabad, and (ii) to command the respondents not to interfere in their possession of the lands covered by the Pattas and to allot the same to others. 2. According to the petitioners they either belong to Schedule Caste or Backward class, who were granted Patta (Leases) by the Chairman of the Land Management Committee, Village Jaitapur, Tahsil Handia, District Allahabad on 6-1-1996 after obtaining due approval from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Handia, District Allahabad on 30-12-1995, copies of which are Annexures 1 to 12. Possession of the leased lands were also delivered to them ; Amaldaramad also took place in the revenue records. On an application of some strangers the Sub-Divisional Officer. Handia, District Allahabad passed an order directing the Naib-Tehsildar, Handia to make an enquiry in relation to the validity of the Pattas and for their cancellation. A copy of the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer has been appended as Annexure-25. The Naib-Tehsildar gave a notice to the Pardhan of the village telling that his presence is needed on 12- 2-1996, the day on which he will go on the spot for the purposes of enquiry. A copy of the notice of Naib-Tahsildar, is Annexure 26. In terms of Section 198 (4) of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act it is only the Collector who either suo motu or on an application of any person, if after making an enquiry himself is satisfied, can pass an order for cancellation of the Pattas, accordingly the enquiry has to be conducted by the Collector himself, whereas in the instant case enquiry is sought to be conducted by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Handia which being contrary to Section 198 (4) of the Act aforementioned is wholly illegal and thus liable to be quashed. 3. In the supplementary affidavit, which has been filed today, it has been stated, inter alia, that as per the definition of the word "collector", defined under Section 3 (4) of the Act, a Sub-Divisional Officer/deputy Collector of the Tahsil or the Naib-Tahsildar are not included. 4. 3. In the supplementary affidavit, which has been filed today, it has been stated, inter alia, that as per the definition of the word "collector", defined under Section 3 (4) of the Act, a Sub-Divisional Officer/deputy Collector of the Tahsil or the Naib-Tahsildar are not included. 4. Sri H. N. Shukla, learned Counsel appearing in support of this petition contended that as the Sub- Divisional Magistrate or the Naib-Tahsildar are not included in the definition of the word collector hence this writ petition be allowed. None of the Petitioners are Sawarn i. e. , of higher caste. 5. Sri P. K. Bisaria, learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contended that none of the 12 petitioners have categorically stated as to which caste they belong rather they have merely made a vague statement that they are either Scheduled Caste or members of Backward class. The question as to whether they belong to the category of persons in whose favour settlement were required to be made being a question of fact this Court need not exercise its discretion more so when it is not the case of the petitioners that they have made any enquiry from the concerned department of the State Government conferring no powers of the Collector under the Act on the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Handia, District Allahabad who has settled the land in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners had not denied the statements made in the written complaint that they are members of the family of the Gram Pradhan. 6. No interim relief was granted to the Petitioners earlier. It has not been stated by the Petitioners as to what happened to his enquiry between 12-3-1996, the day on which this writ petition was filed, till today. The question, however, before us is as to whether it is a fit case in which this court should exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioners at this stage? 7. It has not been stated by the Petitioners as to what happened to his enquiry between 12-3-1996, the day on which this writ petition was filed, till today. The question, however, before us is as to whether it is a fit case in which this court should exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioners at this stage? 7. From the document appended as Annexure 25 it appears that some members of the Gram Sabha Jaitupur filed a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Handia, District Allahabad alleging that the Gram Pradhan after receiving money illegally and by adopting illegal procedure, without beat of any drum and on the basis of Farzi proposal and making showy signatures got executed Patta in favour of the members of his family and persons belonging to higher caste, got facts suppressed and without any enquiry got approval which is wholly illegal and baseless ; neither a list of eligible persons was prepared nor was signature of any member on the proposal obtained ; even no meeting was commenced and thus the Amaldaramad in relation to acceptance of the Pattas be stayed while directing for holding a proper enquiry. The said petition was placed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Handia, District Allahabad on which an enquiry was directed to be made and till then the Amaldaramad was also stayed. 8. Mr. Shukla informs us that this order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 1-2-1996. We find yet another order passed on the very next date i. e. , 2-2-1996 by which the order dated 1-2-1996 was sought to be implemented. Mr. Shukla, however, fails to tell us as to who was the authority who had passed the order dated 2-2-1996. 9. Even though the petitioners have averred in Paragraph 2 of this writ petition that they are either scheduled caste or members belonging to backward class, which statement on the face of it is vague and unsupported by any document on record in the form of necessary certificate issued by the State Government or the Block Development Officer we do not feel expedient to rely on their statement which is also question of fact which had to be determined with reference to the records by the appropriate authority under the Act. 10. 10. True it is that Section 198 (4) of the Act vests the jurisdiction in the Collector to hold an enquiry and then cancel the Patta but in view of any categorical statements by the petitioners on oath that they had made enquiries from the concerned Department of the Government and then they are stating that Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Handia was not vested with the powers of the Collector under the U. P. Z. A & L. R. Act we do not want to interfere with the enquiry, which we hold to be internal in nature, if it is a fact that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was not vested with the powers of the Collector under the Act and direct him to produce the entire records before the Collector under the Act for holding enquiry and for taking action in terms of Section 198 (4) of the Act. 11. With this observation and direction this writ petition is dismissed. However, it is clarified that if the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Handia, District Allahabad, was vested with powers of the Collector under the Act, then he will be competent to proceed with the enquiry and to any logical conclusion, flowing therefrom. 12. The office is directed to hand over a copy of this order, within one week, to Sri P. K. Bisaria, learned Standing Counsel for its intimation to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Handia, District Allahabad for a follow up action. Petition dismissed. .