R.S. Singh, J. - (1.)THE Petitioners Lochan and others have filed Civil Misc. Writ No. 3389 of 1977 and Shri Dhani Ram and others have filed Civil Misc. Writ No. 3790 of 1977. In both the Writ Petitions the orders of the Collector passed on 21 -4 -1977 have been challenged by the Petitioners. As both the impugned orders are based on common facts, both the writ petitions are disposed off together by a common judgment.
(2.)IN a proceeding under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act) the land of one Sri Pooran Singh of village Sirsa, Tehsil Beheri, District Bareilly, was declared surplus. The Collector, Bereilly, executed pattas in favour of the Petitioners on 30 -12 -1975 for an area of 1 -1/4 acres of the aforesaid land. All the Petitioners were given possession over the land allotted in their favour. Thereupon each one of them took about Rs. 300/ -as loan from the cooperative society for carrying on the cultivation on the land allotted to them. One Sri Sher Singh of the aforesaid village, who was a big farmer, made several complaints to different authorities against the allotments of the said land to the Petitioners. On the aforesaid complaint the Additional Collector, Bareilly, submitted a report to the Collector to the effect that the Tehsildar and the Sub -Divisional Officer, Beheri, have come to the conclusion on inquiry that the allotments are liable to be cancelled and in order to remove dissatisfaction in the village all the allotments may be cancelled. On this report of the Additional Collector, the Collector, Bareilly passed some order on 21 -4 -1977 which is illegible in the certified copy filed along with the writ petition. However, the Petitioners have specifically averred in the writ petition that the Collector, Bareilly has also approved the cancellation of the pattas made in favour of the Petitioners without giving any opportunity of being heard to the Petitioners.
No counter affidavit has been failed to controvert this allegation of the Petitioner's. It has further been alleged in the writ petition that against the order of cancellation of pattas passed by the Collector appeals were preferred before the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, who also dismissed the appeals by his order dated 6 -9 -1977 as not maintainable.

(3.)THE Petitioners have challenged he orders of the Collector dated 21 -4 -1977 mainly on the grounds that be fore passing the impugned orders the Petitioners were not given any opportunity and that the order of the Collector cancelling the leases granted in favour of the Petitioners is without jurisdiction. The Petitioners have made clear assertions in the writ petitions that the Collector, Bareilly, cancelled the pattas made in their favour without affording any opportunity of being heard. No counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Respondents to controvert the allegation made by the Petitioners that no opportunity of being beard was given to them by the Collector before passing the impugned orders. It is also contended by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that under the Ceiling Act the only provision for cancellation of the leases is contained in Section 27(4) of the Ceiling Act and in the absence of any proceedings under that provision the Collector had absolutely no authority under the law to cancel the leases granted in favour of the Petitioners. Both the submissions made by the Learned Counsel are well founded. From the perusal of the report of the Additional Collector, on the basis of which the impugned orders have been passed, it does not appear that any opportunity was given to the Petitioners before passing the impugned orders. There is no material before us to disbelieve this assertion of the Petitioners. The Ceiling Act also does not confer any power on the Collector to cancel any lease granted under that Act. The impugned orders are illegal and without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed.