The Collector is not required to record reasons in support of the decision to commence proceedings for cancellation of allotment, but the show cause notice issued by the Collector must contain the ground or grounds on which the cancellation of allotment is proposed.

S.R. SINGH, J.

1. The two petitions in hand are directed against two sets of identical notices-one issued u/s 198(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (In short the Act) and the other issued under Rule 115-P of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules (In short the Rules) and a common order dated 18.2.1993 passed by the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad whereby the Board of Revenue rejected as not maintainable the two connected revisions arising out of the notices aforesaid. The notices issued to the Petitioners in original filed by Smt. Bhoodevi and others were phrased in the following words.

Adhivakta Prartli Ko Suna Gaya Tatha Tahsildar Ki Janch Akhya Ka Avlokan Kiya. Report Tahsildar Se Vidit Hota Ki Pratham Drasti Me s Karyawahi Apekshit He. Atah Notice Dhara 198 (4) Uttar Pradesh Ja. Vi. Evem Bhu. Bya, Adhiniyam Jarl Hokar Dinank 16.11.89 Ko Pesh Ho.

Similarly, the notices issued u/s 198(4) of the UPZA and LR Act to the Petitioners in both the petitions are couched in the following words.

Adhivakta Prarthi Ko Suna Gaya Tatha Tahsildar Ki Janch Akhya Ka Avlokan Kiya, Report Tahsildar Se Vidit Hota He Ki Pratham Drasti Me Kanyawahi Apekshit He Atah notice Dhara 198 (4) TJ. P. Ja. Vi. Evam Bhu. Bya. Adhiniyam Jari Hokar Dinank 16.11.1989 Ko Pesh Ho.

2. On receipt of the notices aforesaid, the Petitioners instead of filing objections, went up in revision before the Additional Commissioner u/s 333A of the Act 1 of 1951. However, the revisions were dismissed as not maintainable as having been preferred against the interlocutory orders. Revisions were then preferred to the Board of Revenue u/s 333 of the Act, which also ended in dismissal by a common order dated 18.2.1993 as not maintainable though by assigning different reasons. The Petitioners have now come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging impropriety in the notice as also the orders.

3. I have heard Sri B. B. Paul, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and also the Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents Sri B.B. Paul canvassed to submissions before me (1) the order under Rule 115P(1) of the Rules or the one u/s 198(4) of the Act is amenable to revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue u/s 333 and (2) while issuing a notice under Rule 115-P taking suo moto cognizance on the basis of any report of the Tahsildar, the Collector must indicate the reasons for initiating the proceedings for cancellation of allotment.

4. In other words, the following questions arise for considerations; firstly, whether a decision to enquire into the legality or otherwise of an allotment taken by the Collector under Rule 115-P (1) of the Rules or u/s 198(4) of the Act, as the case may be, is reviseable u/s 333 of the Act secondly, whether the Collector is required under the law to give reasons in support of his decision to hold enquiry into the legality or otherwise of an allotment and thirdly, whether the show cause notice for its sustenance must indicate the ground or grounds on which the allotment is sought to be cancelled suo-moto by the Collector u/s 198(4) of the Act or u/s 122C (b) read with Rule 115P (1) of the Rules?

5. With a view to appreciating the questions involved in these two petitions, it would be worthwhile to refer to the related provisions of law, which are contained in Sections 122C, 198 and 333 of the Act and Rules 115L, 115-M, 115-N, 115-O and 115-P of the Rules. Section 122C(1) provides that the Assistant Collector In-charge of the Sub-Division of his own or on the resolution of the Land Management Committee, may ear-mark the classes of land specified in the Sub-section for the provision of Abadi sites for the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Agricultural labourers and village Artisans. Sub-section (2) provides that the Land Management Committee may, with the previous approval of the Assistant Collector In-charge of the Sub-Division allo