JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. 1. This judgment would be deciding the controversy which is identically involved in all the Writ Petitions (M/S) Nos. 2290 of 2016, 2287 of 2016, 2643 of 2016, 2295 of 2016, 2644 of 2016 and 2641 of 2016. For the sake of convenience, facts of Writ Petition No. 2295 of 2016 (M/S) are taken into consideration as to be leading case. The petitioners of the Writ Petition No. 2295 of 2016 (M/S) have sought the following reliefs : “(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order passed by the opposite party No.4, Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), Udham Singh Nagar dated 12.07.2016 in Misc. Case No. 04 of 2015-16 as well as the order passed by the Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, dated 18.06.2016, report submitted by the Joint Director, Uttarakhand dated 25.05.2016 as well as the order passed on the complaint dated 30.04.2016 by Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital to make enquiry contained in Annexure No.1 to 4 to this writ petition. (ii) to pass such other order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems it fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (iii) to allow the writ petition with costs in favour of the petitioners.” 2. For dealing with the controversy, the factual backdrop, under which, this writ petition has reached to this stage, is necessarily required to be dealt with. 3. The property, in dispute, which is a subject matter of controversy, are the property which are covered by the impugned order dated 12th July, 2016, i.e. the order of cancellation of patta alleged to have been granted to petitioners under the Government Grants Act, it constitutes as a land lying in Plot No. 66-N, 66, 69, 70, 110-N and 71-N, lying in khata No. 4 of village Rudrapur, Tehsil Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar. The aforesaid land had the following areas recorded in the revenue record. For example, khasra No. 66 was having 23 bigha and 17 biswas, khasra No. 69, having 31 bigha, 16 biswas, khasra No. 70, having 82 bigha, 2 biswas khasra No. 71-N, having area of 2 bigha and 3 biswas and khasra 110-N, having area of two bigha and 8 biswas, which at the relevant time, i.e. in 1375 fasli, all khasra as detailed above, were recorded with in the name of one Mr. Harnam Singh in Shreni-10 ka. 4. According to the petitioners, the said revenue entry in the name of Harnam Singh continued to prevail even prior to 1375 fasli and it continued till 1383 fasli, yet again recorded in Shreni-10 ka, as defined under the Land Revenue Act. It is the case of the petitioners that though the land was recorded in Shreni 10-ka, which according to the petitioners own showing has been defined in para 124 of the Land Record Maunal which reads as under : ^^¼10&d½ fcuk vkxe ds Hkwfe;ksa ds v/;klhu (occupiers) tc fd [kljs ds LrEHk 5 esa igys ls fdlh O;fDr dk uke fyf[kr u gksA fVIi.kh& tc dksbZ yxku fuf'pr u fd;k x;k gks vkSj fdlh ,sls O;fDr }kjk ftls Hkwfe ij dCtk nsus ;k dCtk cuk;s j[kus dh vuqefr nsus dk vf/kdkj izkIr gks] fdlh O;fDr dks bl vfHkizk; ls Hkwfe ij dCtk fn;k x;k gS ;k dCtk cuk;s j[kus dh vuqefr ns nh gks fd mlds vk/kj ij dk'rdkjh dh lafonk ;k Bsdk (Contract of tenancy) gks tk;s] rks ,slk O;fDr ekS:lh dk'rdkj gksxk vkSj mldk mi;qDr LFkku oxZ ¼8½ esa gksxkA fdUrq fdlh ,sls O;fDr dks tks bl izdkj dk dk'rdkj gksus dk nkok djrk gs] ekS:lh dk'rdkj ds :i esa fy[kus ds iwoZ ys[kiky] tehankj vkSj ,sls O;fDr ds oDrO; viuh nSfudh esa fy[ksxk vkSj mu ij muds gLrk{kj djk;sxk vkSj rc dsoy mlh n'kk esa oxZ ¼8½ esa vUnjkt djsxk tc ml lEcU/k esa dksbZ fookn u gksA ;fn tehankj ,sls O;fDr dks fn;k gqvk dk'rdkjh dk vf/kdkj ;k ,sls O;fDr dks dk'rdkj ekuuk Lohdkj u djs rks ,sls O;fDr dk bUnjk oxZ ¼10&d½ esa d;k tk;sxkA** 5. It means a land which a person has occupied without title when in column no. 5 of the khasra does not record the name of any person against it. 6. As per the case revealed from records before this Court, Mr. Hernam Singh is said to have executed a sale deed on 10th December, 1971 of the land, as described above, in favour of Kartar Chand, Smt. Man kaur, Gurmez Singh, Jagir Singh, Jaswant Singh, Balvinder Kaur, Kishan Lal, Onkar Saigal, Swar Singh, Darshan Singh and Srinivas. 7. 6. As per the case revealed from records before this Court, Mr. Hernam Singh is said to have executed a sale deed on 10th December, 1971 of the land, as described above, in favour of Kartar Chand, Smt. Man kaur, Gurmez Singh, Jagir Singh, Jaswant Singh, Balvinder Kaur, Kishan Lal, Onkar Saigal, Swar Singh, Darshan Singh and Srinivas. 7. According to the petitioners, they contend that based on the sale deed dated 10th December, 1971, which they contend to have purchased a Shreni 10-ka land, they were recorded in revenue records and placed in possession. The petitioners have built up a case that there had been Government Orders issued from time to time by the State Government, by virtue of which, the category of the land described as Shreni 10-ka was altered as Shreni-4 of para A-124, although under revenue terms Shreni 10 Ka and Shreni 4 land have mass distinction, no process of its alteration in category has been given, except by Government Order, which is quoted hereunder :- ^^Hkwfe tks ml n'kk esa fcuk vkxe ds v/;klhuksa ds vf/kdkj esa gks tc [kljs ds le; ls igys ls gh fdlh O;fDr dk uke vfHkfyf[kr u gksA** 8. The petitioners submitted that ever since 1971, they have been in cultivatory possession based on the sale deed dated 10th December, 1971, without there being any obstacle or any claim created or developed by any private individual or by the predecessor owner of the property or even the State Authority. They have submitted that in 2003, the Area Lekhpal tried to interfere in their possession, consequently, the petitioners allege that they have filed an application before the Tehsildar on 2nd July, 2003, wherein, according to their own showing, they have prayed that they may be recorded in Shreni-4 or Shreni-1ka. The petitioners submitted that before the Tehsildar in support of their contention / representation dated 2nd July, 2003, they have placed the copy of the khatoni and sale deed which was proved by producing the heirs of the predecessor seller who supported the fact and document that late Mr. Harnam Singh did execute the sale deed dated 10th December, 1971 in favour of the petitioners. However, in para 10 of the writ petition, the petitioners admit that no original document of conveyance was filed regarding the sale. Harnam Singh did execute the sale deed dated 10th December, 1971 in favour of the petitioners. However, in para 10 of the writ petition, the petitioners admit that no original document of conveyance was filed regarding the sale. The proceedings before the Tehsildar was registered as Case No. 30/135/2, which has been decided by the judgment /order dated 19th August, 2003 as passed by the Tehsildar. (this order does not find place on record). 9. Being aggrieved against this order of Tehsildar dated 19.08.2003, it is contended that an appeal under Section 210 of the Land Revenue Act was preferred before the Additional Collector, 1st Class, being Appeal No. 52/07 of 2003-04 (appeal numbers vary in each writ petition). The appeal, thus preferred, was allowed and the order of the Tehsildar was set aside directing the Tehsildar/ Consolidation Officer to make the necessary alterations in the revenue records. The appeal, thus preferred, was allowed and the order of the Tehsildar was set aside directing the Tehsildar/ Consolidation Officer to make the necessary alterations in the revenue records. The operative portion of the appellate order dated 19.07.2005 is quoted hereunder :- ^^vr% vksn'k gqvk fd vihydrkZx.k Jh djrkj pUnz vkfn dh vihy Lohdkj dh tkrh gS iz'uxr Hkwfe xzke :nziqj rglhy fdPNk ds xkVk la0 66 o 69 xkVk la0 70] xkVk la0 70 fe o xkVk la0 110 fe dqy jdck ch?kk 18 fcLok Hkwfe ij vihydrkZx.k djrk pUnz dk xkVk la0 66 fe0 4 ch?kk xkVk la0 69 jdck 1 ch?kk 15 fcLok o xkVk la0 70 fe0 jdck 11 ch?kk 17 fcLok rFkk Jhefr ekudkSj dk xkVk la0 66 fe0 jdck 3 ch?kk o xkVk la0 69 fe jdck 7 ch?kk 14 fcLok xkVk la0 71 jdck 3 fcLok o xkVk la0 110 fe jdck 1 ch?kk rFkk Jhefr cyfoUnj dkSj dk xkVk la0 70 fe jdck 6 ch?kk 7 fcLok xkVk la0 110 fe jdck 6 ch?kk 8 fcLok] fd'kuyky dk xkVk la0 70 fe jdck 15 ch?kk rFkk vksedkj lgxy dk xkVk la0 70 fe jdck 3 fc?kk 8 fcLok xkVk la0 66 jdck 1 ch?kk 16 fcLok xkVk la0 69 jdck 1 ch?kk 14 fcLok] gjdsoy flag o gjikyflag ds firk txhj flag dk xkVk la 70 fe 9 fc?kk 10 fcLok xkVk la0 66 fe 3 ch?kk 7 fCkLok xkVk la0 69 fe jdck 6 ch?kk 3 fcLok rFkk Lo.kZflag dk xkVk la0 70 fe0 jdck 11 ch?kk 18 fcLok xkVk la0 66 fe0 jdck 9 fcLok o xkVk la0 69 fe jdck 6 fc?kk 13 fcLok o n'kZu flag dk xkVk la0 70 fe jdck 12 ch?kk o xkVk la0 60 fe jdck 7 ch?kk ,oa Jhfuokl dk xkVk la0 70 fe jdck 10 ch?kk 13 fcLok o xkVk la0 69 jdck 8 ch?kk 7 fcLok rFkk Jh lkgc flag o xqjes flag ds firk tloar flag dk xkVk la0 66 fe0 jdck 11 ch?kk 5 fcLok Hkwfe ij mijksDrkuqlkj vihydrkZx.k dk uke oxZ 4 esa 1378 Q0 ls ntZ fd;k tkrk gS rFkk mRrjnkrkx.k ds uke vkfn bUnzkt fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA vkns'k dh izfr lEcfU/kr rglhynkj] pdcUnh vf/kdkjh fdPNk dks vfHkys[kksa esa bUnzkt gsrq izsf"kr dh tk;sA i=koyh ckn vko';d dk;Zokgh nkf[ky nQrj gksA** 10. According to the petitioners, surprisingly, one Balbir Kaur who had no concern over the matter had preferred a revision by invoking Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901, before the Board of Revenue, which was registered as Revision No. 13 of 2008-09, wherein, a challenge was given to the Appellate Court’s order dated 19th July, 2005. The revision, thus preferred, has been decided by the impugned order dated 24th June, 2016, whereby, the revision has been allowed and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 19th July, 2005 directing to record the petitioners against their respective piece of land was set aside. Consequently, the Tehsildar’s order dated 19th August, 2003, rejecting the claim of the petitioners under Section 34 for recording their name in Shreni-4, under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, was upheld. 11. It is being aggrieved against this revisional Court’s order dated 24.06.2016, as passed by the Board of Revenue, separate petitions have been filed where the propriety of the order dated 24th June, 2016 has been put to challenge (which are separate set of petitions). 12. But, on account of subsequent developments which has taken place, the petitioners have chosen, for the purposes of present writ petition to challenge the impugned order dated 12th July, 2016, by virtue of which, their patta granted under the Government Grants Act has been cancelled. For the said purpose, it is the case of the petitioners that in view of their request to the Tehsildar to record them in Shreni-4, which was ultimately turned down by the Revisional Court’s order dated 24th June, 2016, their entitlement to be categorized as Shreni-4 class tenure holder, stood denied and that is why, the necessity arose to challenge the order dated 24th June, 2016, passed by the Board of Revenue because until and unless their status as Shreni-4 is upheld or settled by a competent Courts created under the law, they will not be entitled for any benefit which they are claiming under the Government Order dated 11th March, 2015. 13. 13. As on scrutinizing the GO dated 11.03.2015, dealing with the parameters for granting patta under Government Grants Act condition precedent is that the land should have been recorded as Shreni-4 land, and in the instant case, it is admitted case of the petitioners that their right have emanated from purchase of land by sale deed dated 10.12.1971, which admittedly, at the time of purchase and till filing of their application for being granted patta under the Government Order dated 11.03.2015, construed to be recorded as Shreni 10 Ka land, which was outside the purview of the G.O. dated 11.03.2015. Furthermore, because the claim of petitioners to be recorded Shreni 4 or Shreni 1Ka by invoking Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 was rejected by Tehsildar on 19.08.2003, the order which was affirmed by Board of Revenue on 24.06.2016. Hence, as a matter of fact, the date on which petitioners filed their representation, their status was that of Shreni 10Ka, that the nature of land which they had purchased from Harnam Singh, and their status cannot be better than that of their sellers. Furthermore, it is not understandable that when petitioners claim themselves to be purchasers by deed of conveyance, then why recourse to GO dated 11.03.2015 which was for regularization of Shreni 4 land, occupied without title. 14. The State of Uttarakhand had issued a Government Order dated 11th March, 2015, which provided the regularization of possession of the tenure holder by granting them the benefit of bhumidari rights subject to certain riders and fulfillment of conditions as contemplated under the Government Order dated 11th March, 2015. Apparently, as far as the Government Order dated 11th March, 2015 is concerned, it provided as under : 1. The land should be a Shreni-4 land. 2. The occupation should be prior to 30th June, 1983. 3. The possession had continued at the time when the Government Order was issued. 4. The regularization would be only to the limited extent as it is contemplated under the Government Order and various other conditions which are not relevant at this stage to be considered. 15. 2. The occupation should be prior to 30th June, 1983. 3. The possession had continued at the time when the Government Order was issued. 4. The regularization would be only to the limited extent as it is contemplated under the Government Order and various other conditions which are not relevant at this stage to be considered. 15. It is the case of the petitioners that in pursuance to the Government dated 11th March, 2015, they were served with the notice calling upon them to comply the conditions if they fulfill the conditions and entitlement criteria of the Government Order dated 11th March, 2015 for regularization of their possession. Consequent to the notice, the petitioners contend that the District Magistrate on 5th November, 2015, has granted the lease in their favour for plot No. 70-N, an area of 0.4010, plot No. 110-N, an area of 0.4040 in Village Rudrapur and so forth (independently in relation to petitioners of each connected writ petitions). 16. The petitioners contend that after the grant of lease in their favour by Collector on 5th November, 2015, their rights have been perfected as execution of the lease has been made by under the Government Order itself issued by State Government, and when, all of a sudden, they were served with the notice dated 24th June, 2016, giving them a show cause as to why their patta may not be cancelled. It was then only the petitioners contend that they could get the knowledge of the complaint said to have been lodged by respondent No. 5 on 28th April, 2016, before the Commissioner against the grant of lease dated 5th November, 2015 in favour of the petitioners. 17. Primarily, what has been reflected from the complaint as submitted by respondent No. 5 on 28th April, 2016 was that as a matter of fact there was some fraud which has been played by petitioners in collusion with authorities by virtue of which the najul land is shown to have been deliberately fallen in Shreni-4 land so as to bring them within the ambit of regularization under the Government Order dated 11th March, 2015. Taking cognizance to the complaint, the Commissioner is said to have issued a letter on 18.06.2016 to the Joint Director / Additional Commissioner calling for a report, it said the report was submitted on 25th May, 2016 and, consequently, on submission of the inquiry report dated 25th May, 2016, it has reflected that there has chanced various anomalies in the grant of lease under the garb of the Government Order dated 11th March, 2015 and the lease holders have been mis-utilising the grant contrary to the purpose and the intention of the Government Order dated 11th March, 2015. Though petitioners content that when the report was to be utilized against them for testing propriety of lease dated 5.11.2015, it should have been held after notice to them and opportunity to participate in it as it would be having civil consequences on their material right. 18. It has been recorded in the report that in terms of the Government Order dated 11th March, 2015, which deals with regularization, it had provided that the regularization of Shreni-4 land in favour of S.C. & S.T. and B.P.L. cannot be made beyond 100 sq.meter of land and, in the case at hand, for the regularization, which has been made was for an area more than 100 mtrs, which was contrary to the Government Order. 19. According to para 3 of the patta, granted in favour of the petitioners, the land thus regularized was to be utilized for agricultural purposes. However, still after the grant of regularization, the Pattedar has got the land converted its users under Section 143 of the Act. Thus, had violated para 3 of the lease. As per the findings recorded in para 1 and even in accordance with the condtions of the lease, it has been observed in the report that since the patta has been granted under the Government Grants Act, though, it may fall under the category of Government lessee, but the provision of Section 143 will not be applicable. 20. As per the findings recorded in para 1 and even in accordance with the condtions of the lease, it has been observed in the report that since the patta has been granted under the Government Grants Act, though, it may fall under the category of Government lessee, but the provision of Section 143 will not be applicable. 20. The report further found an irregularity to the effect that the construction which was being carried after the conversion was contrary to the terms of the lease and was without a proper sanction under Section 10 of the Regulation of Building Operation Act and since the construction was being carried, it would be deemed that the activity taken by the petitioners, were contrary to the conditions of the lease. 21. It has also come in the findings of the report that under the garb of conversion of Shreni-4 land under the Government Order, as a matter of fact, the only land lying within the notified area has been converted and regularized under the Government Order dated 11th March, 2015 and, thus, the Government Order dated 11th March, 2015, would not apply to the land lying in notified area and no conversions could have been granted. 22. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that when taking cognizance to the complaint submitted by respondent No. 5, when the Commissioner directed to conduct an inquiry and report was submitted on 25.5.2016 before him, he could not have passed an order / direction on 18th June, 2016, passing an administrative order directing the District Magistrate to cancel the lease by way of a specific direction, as according to the petitioners, since the Commissioner, being the superior officer issuing direction to cancel. There is strong possibility for the Collector to be swayed by the decision of the Commissioner and it would affect the decision making process of the Collector. It could not be ruled out that any decision of Collector would not be his independent decision. 23. Though, apparently the relief as prayed, for shows that petitioners have given a challenge to the order of Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital dated 18th June, 2016 and the report submitted by the Joint Director, Uttarakhand dated 25th May, 2016 and the cognizance taken by the Commissioner on 30th April, 2016 on the complaint submitted by respondent No. 5 directing to hold the inquiry. 24. 24. On account of the fact that this Court is dealing exclusively on the propriety of the final order dated 12th July, 2016, cancelling the patta granted in favour of the petitioners under the Government Grants Act, in the light of the provisions contained and intended under the Government Order dated 11th March, 2015. 25. The Government Order dated 11th March, 2015, contemplated granting of lease hold rights in favour of the occupants of the land, in relation to the land which has been categorized as Shreni-4 land in accordance with the para 124 of the Land Record Manual on date when claim is being considered under Government Order 11.03.2015. 26. The petitioners contend that since they satisfied the conditions as stipulated in the Government Order dated 11th March, 2015, they were entitled to be considered for grant of patta by extending the benefits of Government Order dated 11th March, 2015 and, accordingly, the patta was executed in their favour on 12th October, 2015 (In each writ petition date of grant of patta under the G.O. 11.03.2015 are different). 27. On reading of the terms of the Government Order as well as the consequential patta executed in their favour, the same has been granted by the “Collector”, who was authorized as persona designata by the Governor to execute the lease deed in favour of the occupants of the land, lying in Shreni-4. Meaning thereby, an exclusive authority for grant of patta was vested by the Governor with the Collector as conferred by the Governor exercising his powers vested in him by virtue of Government Order dated 11.03.2015. 28. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that by virtue of the impugned order dated 12th July, 2016, their patta which has been granted by Collector under Government Order dated 11.03.2015, based on powers vested in him by the Governor, has been cancelled by the Additional Collector, Udham Singh Nagar, who was not an authority competent to cancel the same. There are two fold reasonings behind it : First :-Once an authority has been vested with the Collector for executing the patta under the Government Grants Act by the Governor and since he being a persona designata, he could not have delegated his powers to the Additional Collector to cancel the patta. There are two fold reasonings behind it : First :-Once an authority has been vested with the Collector for executing the patta under the Government Grants Act by the Governor and since he being a persona designata, he could not have delegated his powers to the Additional Collector to cancel the patta. Second - As the patta has been granted in favour of the petitioners which in itself will constitutes to be a class of tenure holder as contemplated under Section 129 read with Section 133-A of the Zamindari Abolition Act. The same are quoted hereunder :- “129. Classes of Tenure. – There shall be, for the purposes of this Act, the following classes of tenure-holders, that is to say- (1) bhumidhar with transferable rights; (2) bhumidhar with no-transferable rights; (3) asami; (4) Government lessee. (substituted by Act U.P. Act No. 8 of 1977 w.e.f. 28.01.1977)” Section 133-A reads as under :- “[133-A. Government lessees. – Every person to whom land has been let out by the State Government shall be called a Government lessee in respect of such land and shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, be entitled to hold the same in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease relating thereto.]” (Added by U.P. Act No. 37 of 1958. 29. Prominent factor is that the lease holder has to hold the lease exclusively based on the terms of the lease. If cancellation is contemplated by invoking the provisions of Zamindari Abolition Act, then too, under Sub-section (4) of Section 198, the power is vested with the Collector. Section 198 (4) is quoted hereunder :- “[(4) The [Collector] may of his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment of 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 the lease, if any.” 30. Under Section 198 (4), the Collector may of his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment of land inquire in the manner prescribed into such allotment and if he is satisfied that allotment is irregular, he may cancel the allotment and lease if any. The term “Collector” was substituted by U.P. Act No. 27 of 2004 w.e.f. 23.08.2004. The term “Collector” was substituted by U.P. Act No. 27 of 2004 w.e.f. 23.08.2004. Under Section 198 (4), when has used the word “Collector” and “he” simultaneously, it would mean that the power to cancel patta or lease has been exclusively vested with Collector. 31. The term Collector has been defined under Z.A. & L.R. Act in its Sub-section (4) of Section 3 which reads as under : “(4) “Collector” means an officer appointed as Collector under the provision of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and includes an Assistant Collector of First Class empowered by the State Government by a notification in the Gazette to discharge all or any function of a Collector under this Act. It necessarily follows that power of allotment of land under the Act.” 32. Under Schedule-9 of the Constitution of India, the provision of Zamindari Abolition Act has been brought to be within the ambit of Article 31B of the Constitution of India, which means that the provisions of such Act would have a precedence in their operation in the eyes of law. 33. Apart from the multiple factual backdrops which the petitioners contend to be involved in the present case, the core issue which is being agitated to be decided and pressed is with regard to the competence of the Collector to cancel the lease. 34. Although, the tenor of lease does speak that it is under the provision of Government Grants Act, but, logically since it does not provide a forum which could be availed by the parties either by the lessee or lessor, if there is a violation of the terms of the lease or for any other reason cancellation of patta is involved and since the land to which the lease has been granted in pursuance to the Government Order dated 11th March, 2015, has had to be a land under Shreni-4, which is a land covered under the definition of the land contemplated under Sub-section (14) of Section 3 of the Zamindari Abolition Act. The effect would be that in such an eventuality, where the lease is granted over a land for agricultural activities, the lessee will fall to be under the definition of the Government lessee as defined under Section 129, (sub-section 4, which has been inserted by U.P. Act No. 24 of 1986) and furthermore, a vivid definition of the Government lessess as provided under Section 133-A of the Zamindari Abolition Act. 35. On the basis of the aforesaid conjoint reading of provisions of law dealt above, when the lease is for Shreni-4 land and, lease itself does not contemplate a forum for redressal of grievance and the land is covered under the definition of land under the ZA & L.R. Act, the class of right created in favour of the petitioner would be falling under Section 129 read with Section 133-A, defining Government lessee, in that eventuality, if any action is to be taken against the lessee resulting into the cancellation of lease granted in their favour, it ought to be under Sub-section (4) of Section 198. 36. The power of cancellation of lease has been given to the Collector. The term “Collector” has been defined under Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of Z.A. & L.R. Act, as quoted above, which means an Officer as defined under the provisions of Land Revenue Act, 1901. The said Sub-section only includes the Assistant Collector, 1st Class, within the purview of the definition of Collector but with a rider that he too has to be “Empowered by State Government by a notification in the official Gazette to discharge function of Collector” when the powers to the Assistant Collector is gazetted by the notification for discharging the function of the Collector. In the instant case, it is not the case of the State that any such prior compliance of issuance of gazette notification of conferring the powers on the Assistant Collector was given for canceling the patta or to exercise powers of Collector. The State was reorganized on 9th November, 2000. The interpretation of definitions of Collector as given above, is the definition of Collector, as prevailing at the time when the Z.A. & L.R. Act was adopted by the State of Uttarakhand. 37. The State was reorganized on 9th November, 2000. The interpretation of definitions of Collector as given above, is the definition of Collector, as prevailing at the time when the Z.A. & L.R. Act was adopted by the State of Uttarakhand. 37. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the backdrop, under which, the issue has culminated resulting into the passing of the impugned order dated 12th July, 2016, canceling the patta dated 12th October, 2015, as a matter of fact, was on the specific directions which have been issued by the Commissioner to the District Magistrate on 18.06.2016, based on ex parte report dated 25.05.2016 to proceed with the cancellation of patta granted in favour of the petitioners under the Government Order dated 11th March, 2015. What he tries to contend is that no such direction could have been issued by any authority superior to the Collector to take steps for cancellation of the patta, as there is all likelihood that he would be bound to or succumb to the directions of the superior authority and there is strong possibility to prejudices which adversely affects decision making process. For the said purposes, he places reliance on para 17 of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Surinder Singh Brar and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2013) 1 SCC 403 . Para 70 of the said judgment reads as under :- “70. The reason why the LAO did not apply his mind to the objections filed by the Appellants and other landowners is obvious. He was a minion in the hierarchy of the administration of the Union Territory of Chandigarh and could not have even thought of making recommendations contrary to what was contained in the letter sent by the Administrator to Surinder Singh Brar. If he had shown the courage of acting independently and made recommendation against the acquisition of land, he would have surely been shifted from that post and his career would have been jeopardized. In the system of governance which we have today, junior officers in the administration cannot even think of, what to say of, acting against the wishes/dictates of their superiors. One who violates this unwritten code of conduct does so at his own peril and is described as a foolhardy. In the system of governance which we have today, junior officers in the administration cannot even think of, what to say of, acting against the wishes/dictates of their superiors. One who violates this unwritten code of conduct does so at his own peril and is described as a foolhardy. Even those constituting higher strata of services follow the path of least resistance and find it most convenient to tow the line of their superiors. Therefore, the LAO cannot be blamed for having acted as an obedient subordinate of the superior authorities, including the Administrator. However, that cannot be a legitimate ground to approve the reports prepared by him without even a semblance of consideration of the objections filed by the Appellants and other landowners and we have no hesitation to hold that the LAO failed to discharge the statutory duty cast upon him to prepare a report after objectively considering the objections filed under Section 5A(1) and submissions made by the objectors during the course of personal hearing.” 38. Exclusively, on the ground that the cancellation of patta dated 12th July, 2016, as has been done by Assistant Collector and term “Assistant Collector” would not within its definition includes Collector, who was exclusively vested with the powers of the Governor under G.O. dated 11.03.2015 to grant lease as persona designata and there would not have been sub-delegation of delegated powers and since has been made by the Additional Collector, who was not an authority competent under law to cancel the same, the cancellation order dated 12.07.2016 deserves to be quashed. 39. The matter is remitted back to the “Collector” to issue a afresh notice to the patta holders who were granted patta under the Government Order dated 11th March, 2015, provide them a show cause and an opportunity of hearing and then to decide as to whether they were entitled and eligible for the grant of patta or not under the Government Order dated 11th March, 2015. While doing so, he will not be swayed by or affected by any of the direction issued by the Commissioner or the findings recorded in the report dated 25th May, 2016. While doing so, he will not be swayed by or affected by any of the direction issued by the Commissioner or the findings recorded in the report dated 25th May, 2016. He would take an independent decision, but this will not preclude the Collector to conduct his own fact finding inquiry or adopt his own procedure for cancellation of patta, but only after strict adherence of principle of natural justice providing ample opportunity to the petitioners before any final decision is taken. 40. Subject to the above observations, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 12.07.2016 of cancellation of patta is quashed (in each writ petition). The matter is remitted back to the Collector to decide the issue afresh within a period of six months from date of service of certified copy of the order. 41. On account of the fact that the case of the petitioners are that in pursuance of the patta granted in their favour, they have been placed in possession and the respondents apprehend that the property thus leased out may be dealt with by the petitioners, as such, for a period of six months only or till the Collector decides the matter afresh, the parties will maintain status quo in relation to the property in question, will not change its nature, create any encumbrances or third party interest. 42. Subject to the above, the writ petitions are allowed. 43. No order as to costs.