JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - These are two connected reference made by Sri S.M. Hasan, Addl. Faizabad recommending that the two revisions filed by Sho Murti against the order dated August 19, 1970 passed by A.S.D.O. Patti Distt. Partagraph in case Nos. 5/3 and 6/4 under Section 198(2) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act may be dismissed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone though the record. 3. Briefly stated the facts are as follows :- Jai Narain and Ramdin had moved an application before the trial court that plot No. 93 was his grove and plot No. 98 was Abadi, but the Pradhan had irregularly executed leases in respect of these plots in favour of Sheo Murti. The trial court by its order dated August 19, 1970 has cancelled the leases. The learned Addl. Commissioner has supported the order of the trial court. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the leases in his favour were valid and were given after due proclamation and that the order of the learned A.S.D.O. is against law. From the oral as well as documentary evidence it has been fully established that there was no proclamation by the Gaon Sabha regarding letting out of the land. Even the revisionist's own witness Sheo Naresh Singh admitted that he had never heard any proclamation in respect of the leases. It has also been established that no proper meeting for letting out of the land was held. Jageshwar Up Pradhan of the village Mohammad Ali and Bhagwandin, Member hers of the Gaon Sabha have stated that they were never called for a meeting in which the Patta was to be executed. The learned counsel for the revisionist has failed to show any ground why the above finding of the trial court should be rejected. The trial court has also held that the revisionist was not landless person though there were several landless person though there were several landless persons in the village according to Section 198 of Z.A. and L.R. Act. A landless person would get a preference in allotment of land over a person having land thus the leases in question were executed in contraventions of Section 198 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist has assailed the order of the trial court on the ground of limitation. A landless person would get a preference in allotment of land over a person having land thus the leases in question were executed in contraventions of Section 198 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist has assailed the order of the trial court on the ground of limitation. This contention could however, not be upheld as the period of limitation has been provided only where action is taken on the application of a party. No period of limitation has however, been provided where suo moto action is taken under Section 198(2) of Z.A. and L.R. Act by the Collector or by any officer on whom the powers of the Collector have been de-ligated under this section. 6. An affidavit has been filed in this court by one Karedin who claims to be the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha to the effect that he had granted the Patta of the land in suit after doing Munadi in accordance with the provisions of law and after conducting a meeting of the Gaon Sabha. The papers of the Gaon Sabha including the proceeding book and other documents were kept by him at his house, but were taken away by dacoit's in a dacoity committed in his house. The accused in the dacoity case were challenged by the Police under were challenged by the Public under Section 395, I.P.C. and were tried under S.T. No. 46/1959. It was stated in the affidavit that a copy of the judgment of the Sessions trial is being filed separately. However, the copy of the Session's trial has not been filed by the revisionist or by the deponent as by his own affidavit the deponent is a person interested in the revisionist. His affidavit regarding the proclamation and the meeting of the Gaon Sabha cannot over-ride the testimony of the Up Pradhan and two others Members of the Gaon Sabha to the effect that there was no proclamation and no proper meeting of the Gaon Sabha regarding letting out of land. 7. During the pendency of the reference in this court, Rama Nand one of the O.P's. has died on April 20, 1973 and no step for substitution of heirs have been taken by the revisionist. An application has been moved on behalf of the counsel for the O.P. that the revision may be abated on the ground of non-substitution. 7. During the pendency of the reference in this court, Rama Nand one of the O.P's. has died on April 20, 1973 and no step for substitution of heirs have been taken by the revisionist. An application has been moved on behalf of the counsel for the O.P. that the revision may be abated on the ground of non-substitution. I do not find sufficient force in the plea. Rama Nand is only a formal O.P. and the non-substitution of his heirs is not fatal to the present case. 8. On merits I find no force in the present revisions and hereby dismiss them. 9. This order will govern both the connected Reference Nos. 289 and 290 of 171-72/Pratapgarh.