JUDGMENT Sudhir Narain, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.12.1989 passed by the Board of Revenue, respondent No. 1, whereby it allowed the revision and set aside the orders passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the Land Management Committee passed a resolution on 30.12.1981 allotting plot No. 156 area 3-17-0 and plot No. 204 area 1-7-5 situate in village Dargahpur in favour of Mongey Ram, respondent No. 4. The petitioner filed an application before the Collector under Section 198 (4) of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for cancellation of allotment on the allegation that respondent No. 4 was employed in Indian Army at the time of allotment and his father had already 20.22 Bighas of land and tractors, etc. The allotment was made in contravention of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. The 'Munadl' was not duly made and agenda was not circulated before the Land Management Committee passed resolution in favour of respondent No. 4 for allotment of land. It was further averred that the petitioner was in occupation of the land and it was not vacant at the time of allotment.
3. Respondent No. 4 contested the application. It was alleged that the allotment was made in his favour after observing all the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. He denied that the petitioner was in possession of the disputed land at the time of allotment. On behalf of petitioner affidavits of Todar, Phellu. Roop Ram.
Vishambhar and Karan Singh were filed and on behalf of respondent No 4 affidavits of Ram Pal, Molhad and Vishambhar were filed. The Additional Collector also summoned from the Land Management Committee the register regarding resolution of the allotment of the land in question and also examined the Lekhpal. The Additional Collector found that the petitioner was not in possession of the land in dispute on the date of allotment but he found that respondent No. 4 was employed in Indian Army and his father had 20 bighas of land and was cultivating the land with the help of tractor. He was not landless agricultural labourer and was not entitled to priority in the matter of allotment of land. The allotment made in favour of respondent No. 4 was cancelled by his order dated 30th June, 1983.
Respondent No. 4 filed a revision against this order before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Meerut. The revision was dismissed on 12.10.1983 affirming the findings recorded by the Additional Collector. Respondent No. 4 filed revision before the Board of Revenue and it has allowed the revision on the ground that the petitioner was not an aggrieved person and secondly, the Land Management Committee was not made a party before the trial court.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. The petitioner had filed application for cancellation of the lease executed in favour of respondent No. 4 alleging that the allotment made in his favour was in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 198 of the Act which lays down that the allotment is to be made after observing the order of preference mentioned therein. It was further stated that the procedure prescribed under the Rules for allotment was not followed. One of the grounds was that he was in occupation of the disputed land. The Additional Collector, respondent No. 3, did not accept the contention of the petitioner that he was in possession over the disputed land on the date but on merits it was found that the allotment was invalid.
6. The application for cancellation of allotment can be filed before the Collector by any person aggrieved by the allotment of land or the Collector may, on his own motion, enquire as to whether the allotment made by the Land Management Committee was irregular. Tf a person flies complaint alleging that he is an aggrieved person for the reason that he was in possession over the disputed land and if such plea regarding his possession is not accepted still it is open to the Collector to proceed suo motu and on the basis of information given to him in the complaint and can enquire about the matter. The allottee is entitled to have a notice before cancellation of the allotment as provided under sub-section (5) of Section 198 of the Act. If the Collector proceeds to make an enquiry on the basis of the complaint and on enquiry finds that the allotment made is irregular and in contravention of the provisions of the Act he can cancel it even though ultimately it is found that the person filing the complaint had no vested right in the land in dispute and in that event it will be taken that he has exercised suo motu power under Section 198 (4) of the Act.
7. The authority exercising the power of revision under Section 333 will only examine as to whether the trial court exercised a jurisdiction which was not vested in it or failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested or acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularities. The revising authority will not be justified in holding that the Collector had no jurisdiction vested in him to take cognizance of the matter under Section 198 (4) of the Act if it is found that the complainant had no right itself in the land in dispute though on the evidence on the record, it is found that the allotment was irregular and was liable to be cancelled. The land is vested in the Gaon Sabha, by the State of Uttar Pradesh under Section 117 of the Act. The members of the Gaon Sabha have a vested right in such land and the element of public interest is involved when such land is allotted to a person who is not entitled for such allotment. In Brahma Singh and others v. Board of Revenue, U. P., Allahabad and others, 1985 RD 110, relying upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Rama Kant v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 1974 ALJ 834, it was held as under :
"Once the notice is issued to the persons concerned and those persons contested the case on merits it cannot be said that any person has been taken by surprise by the exercise of the suo motu power. In such a case even if the Sub-Divisional Officer does not pointedly bring out to the notice of the party concerned that he proposes to exercise his suo motu powers, and that what the party concerned has to say about it, the order will not be vitiated for it is a settled law that the power to act is there."
8. The Board of Revenue was not justified in setting aside the order only on the ground that the complainant failed to establish that he had a personal vested right over the land in question when the matter was contested by respondent No. 4 and the Additional Collector recorded findings on merits and such order was affirmed in revision by the Additional Commissioner.
Respondent No. 1 should have, in these circumstances, decided the revision on merits.
9. The second ground for setting aside the order is that the Land Management Committee was not made a party before the trial court by the petitioner. The Land Management Committee never raised any objection or filed revision against the order of the Additional Collector dated 30.6.1983. The Additional Collector had summoned the record from the Land Management Committee and the Lekhpal was also examined. The Lekhpal is ex-officio Secretary of the Land Management Committee. The order will not be set aside simply on the ground of non-joinder of a party. In Lachman Singh v. Board of Revenue, U. P. Allahabad and others, 1995 RD 267, wherein the Board of . Revenue had remanded the case because the Land Management Committee was not impleaded as a party as provided under Rule 178A of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules which requires that where the Collector makes enquiry under sub-section (4) of Section 198, the Land Management Committee and the allottee of the land shall be made parties and shall be given opportunity of being heard before the final orders are passed, it was observed as under : .
"The grievance in this respect can be raised by the Land Management Committee alone. An order passed in a suit or proceeding is not bad in law for non-Joinder of a party. Once an order was passed by the Additional Collector without any objection on the part of allottee, that notice to Land Management Committee has not been given, then it is not open for the allottee to raise any such objection at revisional stage for the first time. The grievance could be to Land Management Committee alone, which could have raised objection."
10. There is nothing on the record to establish that respondent No. 4 at any time raised the objection either before the Additional Collector or Additional Commissioner that the Land Management Committee was not impleaded as a party and for not such impleadment any prejudice was caused to him.
11. In view of the above the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 14.12.1989 is hereby quashed. Respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the revision afresh on merits in accordance with law. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.