JUDGMENT Hon’ble Y.K. Sangal, J.—This writ petition has been filed to quash the order dated 12.10.2009 passed by respondent No. 1 i.e. Additional Commissioner (Adm.), Gonda and order dated 20.8.2008 passed by Collector/District Magistrate, Balrampur. By the order dated 20.8.2008, Collector, Balrampur had canceled the Patta, in favour of the petitioners granted by Assistant Collector, Utraula, District Balrampur vide it’s order dated 11.7.2007. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and perused the record. 3. It is not disputed that under Section 122-C(4), the Assistant Collector Incharge of the Sub Division, Utraula, District Balrampur has granted Pattas of the land of Plot No. 440/0.069 in favour of the petitioners. He has observed in the order of allotment that Land Management Committee has failed to discharge its duties under sub-section (2) of Section 122-C, he himself allotted the land under the provisions of sub-section (3) of 122-C in favour of the petitioners. Under Section 122-C(6), the Collector of the District is empowered that at his own motion and on the application of person aggrieved by allotment of the land, inquire in the manner prescribed, into such allotment and 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 all other persons claiming through him in the land allotted shall seize. Against the allotment order of in-charge, Assistant Collector on the application of one Ved Prakash, respondent No. 4, Collector respondent No. 2 had proceeded in the matter under Section 122-C(6) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and canceled Pattas granted in favour of the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Ved Prakash, respondent No. 4 cannot be placed in the category of aggrieved person against the order of allotment and Collector was not authorized to proceed in the matter on his complaint. 5. Learned Standing Counsel argued that there is a provision that Collector may of his own motion also can take action under the Act. For the sake of argument if it is taken correct that Ved Prakash, respondent No. 4 was not an aggrieved person, even then order passed by respondent No. 2 of canceling of Patta in favour of the petitioners can be considered that he has taken action on his own motion. For the sake of argument if it is taken correct that Ved Prakash, respondent No. 4 was not an aggrieved person, even then order passed by respondent No. 2 of canceling of Patta in favour of the petitioners can be considered that he has taken action on his own motion. If someone has pointed him that illegalities and irregularities were committed by Incharge, Assistant Collector in the allotment and after investigation if he found that irregularities and illegalities were committed and he canceled the Patta, it could not be said that he acted without jurisdiction in the matter. This argument is not without force because it is not material how and why Collector has taken action but material is that there were irregularities and illegalities in allotment procedure taken by the Assistant Collector. 6. Learned Standing Counsel argued that under the provisions of 122-C(7), it is provided that every order passed by Assistant Collector under Section 4 shall subject to the provisions of sub Section 6 and every order passed by the Collector under Section 6 shall be final and the provisions of Section 333 and Section 333-A shall not be applied in relation thereto. Learned Standing Counsel further argued that revision was not maintainable against the order of Collector before the Commissioner and Revisional Court’s order may be taken as order passed without jurisdiction. If non-speaking, unreasoned, without application of mind as said by the petitioner’s counsel, order was passed by the Commissioner in revision, it will have no effect. This Court is also not powerless to look the validity and legality of the order passed by Collector under Section 122-C(6) of the Act. 7. Learned Collector after giving detailed and sufficient reason in the order and after exercising his discretion and jurisdiction passed the impugned order dated 20.8.2008. Gram Panchayat had replied the notice issued that L.M.C. was working properly hence suo moto allotment proceedings by Assistant Collector was illegal and irregular. Allotment under Section 122-C of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is provided to agricultural labourer amongst other. Learned Standing Counsel argued that nowhere petitioner said themselves that they are agricultural labourer. As per the record, they have their own house in the village. Nowhere said that they are not having sufficient accommodation in the house for their family members. They belong to which category and entitle for allotment under Section 122-C(3) also not shown on their behalf. Learned Standing Counsel argued that nowhere petitioner said themselves that they are agricultural labourer. As per the record, they have their own house in the village. Nowhere said that they are not having sufficient accommodation in the house for their family members. They belong to which category and entitle for allotment under Section 122-C(3) also not shown on their behalf. There is no illegality, invalidity and impropriety in the impugned order passed by the Collector. Order passed by the Collector is based on the facts and evidence available on the record. Sufficient opportunity for hearing was given to the petitioners by the Collector. No interference is required by this Court on the order passed by the Collector. This Court is nor required to act as appellate Court over order of Collector. Petition has no force, hence, the same is hereby dismissed. ————