JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 15.2.2001 and 30.7.1996 passed by Board of Revenue in Reference No. 96 of 1996-97 and Additional Collector (Administration) Kanpur Dehat (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 2) in case No. 140/1995-96 under Rule 115-P of U.P.Z.A & L.R. Rules. Vide order dated 30.7.1996 the respondent No. 2 has rejected the application of the petitioner dated 1.12.1993 for cancelling the allotment of abadi site over an area measuring about 10 biswansi situated in plot No. 267 which old number happened to be 322 and by subsequent order dated 15.2.2001 the Member Board of Revenue has rejected the reference made by Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division Kanpur while exercising his Revisional power under Section 333 of U.P. Zaminadari Abolition & Land Reforms Act,1950 (in short U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act) in Revision No. 40/96-97, Kalika Prasad and others v. Brijendra Kumar and others. The Revision was filed against the judgment and order dated 30.7.1996. 2. The facts giving rise to this case are that an area of 10 biswansi situated in plot No. 267 was allotted to the respondent No. 5 for abadi site by the respondent No. 4 i.e., Land Management Committee. The petitioners have filed an application for cancellation of the said allotment under Section 122-C (6) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act read with Rule 115-P of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules on the ground that the allotted area was given by the Zamindar to the petitioners since before the abolition of Zamindari for plantation of the trees and over the disputed land more than 50 years old trees belonging to the petitioners are standing and the land was not vacant, therefore, no allotment could be made. It has also been stated that the allotment was irregular as the respondent No. 5 do not fall under the eligibility criteria and the procedure prescribed under the rules for allotment has also not been followed. The said application was rejected by the Collector by the impugned order dated 30.7.1996 on the ground that the land is recorded as banjer in the revenue record and the possession of the petitioners over the disputed land, prima facie appears to be unauthorised. It has also been held that the petitioners have no right over the land in dispute. The said application was rejected by the Collector by the impugned order dated 30.7.1996 on the ground that the land is recorded as banjer in the revenue record and the possession of the petitioners over the disputed land, prima facie appears to be unauthorised. It has also been held that the petitioners have no right over the land in dispute. Since the allotment in favour of respondent No. 5 was made in accordance with law, therefore, that cannot be cancelled in this proceeding. 3. Aggrieved from the order dated 30.7.1996 the petitioner has filed a Revision No. 40/96-97 under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act before the Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur. The Additional Commissioner has found that the Zamindar has given permission on 22nd May,1949 for plantation of trees. Therefore, the petitioner’s right over the planted trees is established. But so far as the title is concerned the Divisional Commissioner has held that the land shall belong to the Gaon Sabha, however, the possession of the petitioner cannot be said to be illegal, or unauthorised as he has entered into the possession only after the permission of Zamindar since before the commencement of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act. Hence he made a reference to the Board of Revenue for allowing the application dated 1.12.1993 filed by the petitioners for cancellation of the allotment over the plot No. 267. 4. The Member Board of Revenue has rejected the reference made by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Kanpur Division Kanpur vide order dated 15.2.2001 and maintained the order passed by the Collector the respondent No. 2 dated 30.7.1996. In doing so, learned Member has observed that in case the permission was granted by the Zamindar for plantation of the trees since prior to the Zamindari abolition then why the petitioner has not taken any steps to get recorded his name on the basis of that permission. The Member Board of Revenue has taken the view that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the aforesaid allotment in favour of the opposite parties. 5. Sri V.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the aforesaid orders have made following submissions : (i) Admittedly the land was not vacant at the time of allotment, therefore, no allotment could be made in view of the provisions contained under Sections 195, 197 and 122-C of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act and Rules framed thereunder. 5. Sri V.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the aforesaid orders have made following submissions : (i) Admittedly the land was not vacant at the time of allotment, therefore, no allotment could be made in view of the provisions contained under Sections 195, 197 and 122-C of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act and Rules framed thereunder. (ii) The allotment has been made ignoring the mandatory provisions as contained in Rule 115-N of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules as no munadi and beating of drums as required under the Rule has been made before the allotment, therefore allotment deserved to be cancelled. (iii) In his submissions assuming there was proposal for allotment of land by the Land Management Committee, the respondent did not fall under the eligibility criteria as contained under Section 122-C (3) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as the person in whose favour allotment is made is not a landless person. (iv)The father of the respondent happened to be the Member of the Land Management Committee, therefore, the allotment could not have been made. (v) The report of the Tehsildar with regard to the irregular allotment has also not been considered either by the Collector while passing the order dated 30.7.1996 on the application of the petitioner for cancellation of the lease or by the member Board of Revenue in the reference proceeding. 6. He has also submitted that the permission/izazatnama given by the Zamindar in the year 1949 was a valid one and the petitioners have planted trees over the said land, therefore, a valuable right has accrued in favour of the petitioners and the Collector as well as Member Board of Revenue have erred in law in not examining the facts of the case in the legal perspective. In his submissions the reason recorded by the learned Additional Commissioner Kanpur Division, Kanpur while sending the reference to the Board of Revenue is quite logical and legal one and learned Member Board of Revenue has erred in law in not accepting the same. 7. Refuting the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel as well as counsel for the Gaon Sabha have submitted that the provisions of Sections 195 and 197 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, are not attracted in the case of the petitioners. 7. Refuting the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel as well as counsel for the Gaon Sabha have submitted that the provisions of Sections 195 and 197 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, are not attracted in the case of the petitioners. In their submission the land in dispute is recorded as banjer in the revenue record, therefore, allotment has been made under Section 122-C of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act by the competent authority on the resolution of the Gaon Sabha. They have also submitted that had there been any permission given by the Zamindar in favour of the petitioner for plantation of the trees over the disputed land they ought to have taken recourse of law for recording their name in Revenue Record. Now after the expiry of so many years such kind of plea is unsustainable in the eyes of law. In their submission the orders passed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 are perfectly valid and in accordance with law and it do not require any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. I have heard Sri V.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel as well as counsel for the Gaon Sabha, for the respondent. No body has appeared for the respondent No. 5. 9. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the requirement of law for the allotment of land under Sections 195 and 197 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, are required to be looked into. These sections are quoted below : "195. Admission to Land.—(1) The [Land Management Committee] with the previous approval of the [Assistant Collector in charge of the Sub­Division] shall have the right to admit any person as [bhumidhar with non­transferable rights] to any land (other than land falling in any of the classes mentioned in Section 132) where : (a) the land is vacant; (b) the land is vested in the [Gaon Sabha] under Section 117; or (c) the land has come into the possession of [Land Management Committee] under Section 194 or under any other provision of this Act. 197. 197. Admission to land mentioned in Section 132—(1) The [Land Management Committee] [with the previous approval of the [Assistant Collector in charge of the Sub-Division] shall have the right to admit any person as asami to any land falling in any of the classes mentioned in Section 132 where— (a) the land is vacant land, (b) the land is vested in the [Land Management Committee], or (c) the land has come into the possession of the [Land Management Committee] under Section 194 or under any other provision of this Act. [(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, the right to admit any person as asami of any tank, pond or other land, covered by water shall be regulated by the rules made under this Act.]" 10. From the perusal of above sections it is apparent that the first requirement of law for the allotment of land under Sections 195 (a) and 197 (a) is that the land must be vacant. The word ‘Vacant’ has been defined in Chamber’s Dictionary as empty; unoccupied; not assigned to any activity; free; blankly incurious. Almost the same meaning has been given in the Webster’s Dictionary. The word ‘Vacant’ means empty; not filled (of a post or seat etc.); unoccupied; untenanted, not vacant grin, unused or unoccupied (having no claimant). 11. From the perusal of the meaning of word ‘vacant’ it is clear that the word vacant means-unoccupied, having no claimants. Here it is admitted that the petitioners are in possession over the leased land, therefore, the land was not vacant at the time of allotment. 12. Now further question would arise that if the land was not vacant whether it was open to the Revenue Authorities to let out the land without getting it vacated from the possession of the petitioners. 13. It is not in dispute that the rule of law is prevailing and nobody can be permitted either it is governmental authorities or a private person to take law in their hands. If a person is in unauthorised occupation of the land, the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 takes care of and has made provision for eviction of such unauthorised occupant. Section 122 (8) of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act which deals with the power of Land Management Committee and the Collector for eviction of unauthorised persons. If a person is in unauthorised occupation of the land, the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 takes care of and has made provision for eviction of such unauthorised occupant. Section 122 (8) of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act which deals with the power of Land Management Committee and the Collector for eviction of unauthorised persons. There is also provision for payment of compensation and damages for unauthorised use and occupation but that cannot be resorted unless a show cause notice/an opportunity of hearing is given to the person concerned who has been found in wrongful occupation. 14. Not only in the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act but under Sections 4 and 5 of U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1971 there is a provision to evict such persons who are unauthorised occupant over the State property. Section 27 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 also talks about the same and in all these Acts there is a provision for issuing notice before the eviction of unauthorised occupants/and construction over the such land. 15. It is also noticeable that certain kind of unauthorised occupants (landless labourers, village artisans etc.) have got legal status under Section 123 of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act. It reflects that unauthorised occupation is not a new thing, therefore, it can be safely inferred that even if, somebody is found in the unauthorised occupation of Gaon Sabha land, should not be thrown in this manner without taking recourse of law particularly in a case where unauthorised duration is of long standing. 16. It reflects that unauthorised occupation is not a new thing, therefore, it can be safely inferred that even if, somebody is found in the unauthorised occupation of Gaon Sabha land, should not be thrown in this manner without taking recourse of law particularly in a case where unauthorised duration is of long standing. 16. Now the question would arise whether the requirement of vacant nature of land for allotment of the land vested in the Gaon Sabha as required under Sections 195 and 197 is also applicable in the case of the allotment of housing site under Section 122-C of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which is quoted below : "122-C. Allotment of land for housing site for members of Scheduled Caste, agricultural labourers etc.—(1) The Assistant Collector in charge of the sub-division of his own motion or on the resolution of the Land Management Committee, may earmark any of the following causes of the land for the provision of abadi sites for the members of the Scheduled Castes and [the Scheduled Tribes and the other backward classes and the persons of general category living below poverty line] and agricultural labourers and village artisans— (a) lands referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 117 and vested in the Gaon Sabha under the section; (b) lands coming into possession of the Land Management Committee under Section 194 or under any other provisions of this Act; (c) any other land which is deemed to be or becomes vacant under Section 13, Section 14, Section 163, Section 186 or Section 211; (d) where the land earmarked for the extension of abadi and reserved as abadi site for Harijans under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, is considered by him to be insufficient, and land earmarked for other public purposes under that Act is available, then any part of the land so available. (2) Notwithstanding anything in Sections 122-A, 195, 196, 197 and 198 of this Act, in Sections 4, 15, 16, 19, 28-B and 34 of the United Provinces Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, the Land Management Committee may with the previous approval of the Assistant Collector in charge of the Sub-division allot for purposes of building of houses, to persons referred to in sub-section (3); (a) any land earmarked under sub-section (1); (b) any land earmarked for the extension of abadi sites for Harijans under the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953; (c) any abadi site referred to in Clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of Section 117 and vested in the Gaon Sabha; (d) any land acquired for the said purposes under the Land Acquisition Act, 1994, (3) The following order of preference shall be observed in making allotment under sub-section (2); (i) an agricultural labourer of village artisan residing in the village and belonging to a Scheduled Caste or [Scheduled Tribes or other backward classes or a person of general category living below poverty line]; (ii) any other agricultural labourer or village artisan residing in the village; (iii) any other person residing in the village and belonging to a Scheduled Caste; or (iv) a person with disability residing in the village." 17. From the bare perusal of the above section, it appears that the requirement of vacant nature of the land as contained in Sections 195 and 197 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is not there. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before the Court that same analogy may be applied here also in the case of allotment of the housing site. After careful examination of Sections 195,197 and 122-C it transpires that the word ‘vacant’ mentioned in Sections 195 and 197 do not find mention under Section 122-C of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act. It is well established principle of rules of interpretation that the statute should be read as it is. In the case of Corporation of the City of Victoria v. Bishop of Vancouver Island, AIR 1921 PC 240 p. 242. It is well established principle of rules of interpretation that the statute should be read as it is. In the case of Corporation of the City of Victoria v. Bishop of Vancouver Island, AIR 1921 PC 240 p. 242. It has been observed by Lord Atkinson : "In the construction of statutes, their words must be interpreted in their ordinary grammatical sense unless there be something in the context or in the object of the statute in which they occur or in the circumstances in which they are used, to show that they were used in a special sense different from their ordinary grammatical sense.” 18. If the words used in the Section 122-C are to be read as it stand and if it is read so then the requirement of vacant nature of land is not necessary. The only requirement under that Section is that the land must be vested in the Gaon Sabha under sub-section (1) of Section 117 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, and the land coming into the possession under Section 194 or any land which is deemed to be vacant under Sections 13, 14, 163, 186 or Section 211 or where the land earmarked was for extension of abadi and reserved as abadi site for harijan under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Had there been any intention of the legislature to make condition precedent the vacant nature of land for allotment of abadi site under this section then that word must have been mentioned in this section also. 19. It is noticeable that the Courts are not supposed to fill the gaps. The Court can utmost press the wrinkles and cannot make a bridge. The Court’s function is to interpret the law, keeping in mind the object of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 20. The Apex Court in the case of Karnataka State v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 68 and Union of India v. Ranjit Kumar, (2003) 6 SCC 516 has observed : "in this connection it is pertinent to remember that although a Court cannot supply a real casus omissus it is equally clear that it should not so interpret a statute as to create a casus omissus when there is really none.” 21. However, one question will remain that even if it is presumed that the land vested in the Gaon Sabha can be allotted even if it is not vacant, even then the requirement of principles of natural justice is required to be observed particularly in a case where the order impugned leads civil consequences. The Apex Court in the case of D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., (1993) 3 SCC 259 has made the following observations : "The cardinal point that has to be borne in mind, in every case, is whether the person concerned should have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case and the authority should act fairly, justly, reasonably and impartially. It is not so much to act judicially but is to act fairly, namely, the procedure adopted must be just, fair and reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case. In other words application of the principles of natural justice that no man should be condemned unheard intends to prevent the authority from acting arbitrarily effecting the rights of the concerned person. It is fundamental rule of law that no decision must be taken which will affect the right of any person without first being informed of the case and giving him/her an opportunity of putting forward his/her case. An order involving civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice. In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner the Constitution Bench held that ‘Civil consequences’ covers infraction of not merely property or personal right but of civil liberties, material deprivation and non-pecuniary damages. In its comprehensive connotation every thing that affects a citizen in his civil life inflicts a civil consequence. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edn., page 1487 defined civil rights are such as belong to every citizen of the State or country ... they include... rights capable of being enforced or redressed in civil action. .. In State of Orissa v. (Miss) Birapani Dei this Court held that even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the roles of natural justice. The person concerned must be informed of the case, the evidence in support thereof supplied and must be given a fair opportunity to meet the case before an adverse decision is taken. Since no such opportunity was given it was held that superannuation was in violation of principles of natural justice. The person concerned must be informed of the case, the evidence in support thereof supplied and must be given a fair opportunity to meet the case before an adverse decision is taken. Since no such opportunity was given it was held that superannuation was in violation of principles of natural justice. In State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar per majority, a seven-Judge Bench held that the rule of procedure laid down by law comes as much within the purview of Article 14 of the Constitution as any rule of substantive law. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India another Bench of seven Judges held that the substantive and procedural laws and action taken under them will have to pass the test under Article 14. The test of reasons and justice cannot be abstract. They cannot be divorced from the needs of the nation." 22. The tests have to be pragmatic otherwise they would cease to be reasonable. The procedure prescribed must be just, fair and reasonable even though there is no specific provision in a statute or rules made thereunder for showing cause against action proposed to be taken against an individual, which affects the right of that individual. The duty to give reasonable opportunity to be heard will be implied from the nature of the function to be performed by the authority which has the power to take punitive or damaging action. Otherwise also although it has been held that the requirement of vacant nature of land as contained under Sections 195 and 197 of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act is not there under Section 122-C but the provisions of Section 122-B are still there and the same is not applicable only with regard to the particular type of unauthorised occupant, therefore, authorities must have taken care of statutory provisions before allotting the land in dispute. 23. Not only in this case but in number of cases it has been held that when impugned order leads civil consequences adversely affecting the right of others then before passing such order principles of natural justice has to be observed. In the present case the revenue Courts have found the petitioner in occupation of land therefore before allotting the land to other person or even thereafter they ought to have given an opportunity for removal of tree if the allotment of land in dispute was otherwise valid. 24. In the present case the revenue Courts have found the petitioner in occupation of land therefore before allotting the land to other person or even thereafter they ought to have given an opportunity for removal of tree if the allotment of land in dispute was otherwise valid. 24. So far as the procedural lapses with regard to the allotment of land is concerned it was obligatory on the part of the authorities to consider the same in view of the provisions contained under Rule 115-N of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Rules, which runs as follows : "115-N. General.—(1) Whenever the Land Management Committee proceeds to allot housing sites under Rule 115-L or 115-M, it shall announce by beat of drum in the village the exact location of the sites to be allotted, the time, the date and venue of allotment. (2) All allotment shall be made by the Land Management Committee in a meeting held for the purpose on the date announced under sub-rule (1). Where more than one person belonging to the same order of preference express their desire to be allotted a particular site, the said Committee shall draw lots to determine the person to whom the site should be allotted : Provided that the prior approval of the Assistant Collector-in­charge of the sub-division shall be obtained for every allotment under Rule 115-L or 115-M. (3) The allottee of the housing site shall be given a receipt for the premium, if any, paid by him to the Land Management Committee and a certificate of allotment. The certificate shall be in Z.A. Form 49-F which shall be prepared in two parts, the main certificate being given to the allottee and its counterpart remaining with the Land Management Committee for record." 25. From the perusal of sub-rule (1) of Rule 115-N it is apparent that the Land Management Committee was under legal obligation to advertise the resolution for allotment of abadi site. From the perusal of sub-rule (1) of Rule 115-N it is apparent that the Land Management Committee was under legal obligation to advertise the resolution for allotment of abadi site. Whereas in this particular case from the perusal of report of Tehsildar copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, it transpires that the procedure contained in the rule were not followed and the allotment was made in contravention of the rules but the authorities (Collector & Board of Revenue) have omitted to take note of the report of the Tehsildar in this regard and failed to exercise their duties vested in them under the relevant statute. 26. In this regard it is to be noted that the Collector while passing the order dated 30.7.1996 has also observed that the petitioner is not aggrieved person as he has occupied the Gaon Sabha land, therefore, also an application on his instance for cancellation of lease is not maintainable. 27. The word ‘aggrieved’ has been defined in the Webster’s Dictionary as having the grievance; offended, slighted, injured in one’s legal rights. 28. In the Law Laxicon Dictionary the word Aggrieved has been defined as under : ‘aggrieved’ means a term of very ancient origin, appearing on the Statute Role of 1363; For purposes of ascertaining rights of appeal, any person who is in any sense a party to a legal proceeding is “aggrieved” by a wrong decision with regard to the proceeding. Under statutes granting the right of appeal to the party aggrieved by an order or judgment, the party aggrieved is one whose pecuniary interest is directly affected by the adjudication; one whose right of property may be established or divested thereby. (Black). 29. In the case of Lalji Sahay Singh v. Abdul Gani, 7 Ind. Cas. 765 (766) it has been observed that an aggrieved person is a person whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something or wrongfully affected his title to something. 30. In the case of Ebrahim Aboobakar v. Custodian General of Evacue Property, AIR 1952 SC 319 the Apex Court has observed that when a person is given a right to raise a contest in a certain matter and his contention is negatived, he is a person aggrieved. 31. 30. In the case of Ebrahim Aboobakar v. Custodian General of Evacue Property, AIR 1952 SC 319 the Apex Court has observed that when a person is given a right to raise a contest in a certain matter and his contention is negatived, he is a person aggrieved. 31. From the perusal of meaning of the word “aggrieved” and the view taken by the Courts it is apparent that the person concerned i.e., the petitioner is very well aggrieved as he is in occupation of the land and his trees are standing thereon, and if the orders impugned in the writ petition are carried on/implemented it is none except petitioner who will put to loss. Hence the view taken by the Collector that the petitioner is not aggrieved person is unsustainable. 32. The matter can be examined from another angle : Rule 115-P talks about the power of the Collector with regard to the cancellation of allotment of land made under Rules 115-L and 115-M of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Rules, 1952. Rule 115-P is reproduced below : 115-P. (1) The Collector may, of his own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved by any order of allotment of land under Rule 115-L or 115­M, proceed to make an inquiry in the manner given hereunder. (2) The allottee and Land Management Committee shall be necessary parties to all such cases. (3) The Collector on the application of any party or otherwise may pass suitable interim orders at any time before the final disposal of the case. (4) The Collector shall call upon all persons interested in the order of allotment to appear and present their case before him. It shall not be necessary to record evidence but the memo of the day to day inquiry shall be kept on record by the Collector. On making inquiries, if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular he may cancel the allotment and thereupon the right, title and interest of the allottee and of every other persons claiming through him in the land shall cease. (5) The order of the Collector under the preceding sub-rule shall be final. 33. On making inquiries, if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular he may cancel the allotment and thereupon the right, title and interest of the allottee and of every other persons claiming through him in the land shall cease. (5) The order of the Collector under the preceding sub-rule shall be final. 33. From the perusal of sub-rule (3) and (4) of Rule 115-P it transpires that the Collector may, on his own or on the application of any person aggrieved may proceed to make an inquiry and pass interim order or call other interested person in this regard. These sub-rules provide that how the Collector shall proceed while holding an inquiry. 34. Almost the same word “otherwise" as used in sub-rule (3) of Rule 115-P of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules has been used in Rule 4 (1) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 and the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Moti Lal v. District Magistrate, Lalitpur and another, 2003 AII. C.J. 771 has interpreted the said word as under : "The words "or otherwise” occurring in sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 are of wide import. Even if no complaint is filed as envisaged by Rule 3, the State Government does not lack of power to direct holding of preliminary enquiry. There may be cases in which the District Magistrate or other officials charged with looking the affairs of Gram Panchayat may receive information or may personally finds fact requiring holding of preliminary enquiry. For example, the Sub Divisional Officer who is incharge of a sub division if finds a Pradhan abusing his position and committing serious financial irregularities can report the matter to the District Magistrate who is authority competent to order of preliminary enquiry. The report of Sub-Divisional officer may form basis for directing a preliminary enquiry. The District Magistrate may after personally coming to know some serious lapse on the part of the Pradhan may direct preliminary enquiry without there being any complaint or report. In the present case the complaint submitted by the Up-Pradhan was valid material for directing preliminary enquiry, hence the submission of counsel for the appellant has no substance.” 35. The District Magistrate may after personally coming to know some serious lapse on the part of the Pradhan may direct preliminary enquiry without there being any complaint or report. In the present case the complaint submitted by the Up-Pradhan was valid material for directing preliminary enquiry, hence the submission of counsel for the appellant has no substance.” 35. The determination before the Division Bench was that whether a preliminary inquiry against the Pradhan can be initiated on a complaint/information as prescribed under Rule 3 of Rules 1997 or the State (Collector) can pass an order for holding a preliminary enquiry on the basis of information otherwise received. 36. In the present case although this Court has held that the petitioner was very well aggrieved person and District Magistrate has erred in holding that an application for cancellation of lease on the instance of the petitioner is very well maintainable, but assuming for the sake of argument the petitioner was not an aggrieved person as pointed out by the Collector concerned even then the Collector was under a legal obligation in furtherance of his duty to examine the procedural lapse in granting of lease under the provisions of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act and Rules. 37. In view of above discussions, I am of the view that the Collector was under a legal obligation to hold an enquiry with regard to the procedural lapse in respect to the allotment of the abadi site as he was otherwise having knowledge of the irregular allotment of the abadi site (the report of Tehsildar Annexure-2 to the writ petition), needless to say that the same mistake has been committed by the Member Board of Revenue while rejecting the reference made by the Additional Commissioner. 38. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 30.7.1996 and 15.2.2001 (Annexures 3 & 6 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed. 39. The matter is remanded back to the Collector to pass appropriate order in accordance with law after holding an enquiry as required under the relevant statutes. ————