JUDGMENT P.C. Saxena, Member. - The Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra has made this reference dated June 2, 1973 in a case under Rule 115-N of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules. 2. A complaint has been filed against certain allotments made by the Land Management Committee and notice was issued to the allottees under Rule 115-N of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules. The learned S.D.O. who held the enquiry found the proceedings to have been irregular and cancelled the allotments by his order dated September 7, 1972. 3. The revision application has been recommended for dismissal by the learned Additional Commissioner. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionists has pointed out that an amendment to the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules was promulgated in March, 1972, according to which only the Collector had jurisdiction to cancel the allotments of land made by the Land Managements Committee. As against this, learned counsel for the opposite parties has argued that since the case against the allottees was pending before the promulgation of the amendment in law, the procedure prescribed by the law as it stood previously remained valid even after the amendment, and, therefore, the order of the S.D.O. was within jurisdiction. In support of his contention he has cited three rulings. 5. The first ruling is reported in 1971 A.I.R. (M.P.) 40. It does not appear to support the argument of the learned counsel since it lays down that it is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation. In other words, retrospective operation. In other words, retrospective operation is not to be taken as intended unless the intention is manifested by express words or necessary intendment. It is not the case of either party that the amendment to the rules promulgated in March, 1972 contains any specific provision to the effect that any case pending before courts would be dealt with under the old law. The ruling cited, therefore, does not apply. Another ruling cited is of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1970 A.I.R. 1636. It is not the case of either party that the amendment to the rules promulgated in March, 1972 contains any specific provision to the effect that any case pending before courts would be dealt with under the old law. The ruling cited, therefore, does not apply. Another ruling cited is of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1970 A.I.R. 1636. The law was laid down therein as follows:- "The effect of the application of this principle is that pending cases although instituted under the old Act but still pending, are governed by the new procedure under the amended law, but whatever procedure was correctly adopted and concluded under the old law cannot be opened again for the purpose of applying the new procedure. In the present case, the trial of the appellant was taken up by the Special Judge, Santhal Parganas, when Section 5(3) of the Act was still operative. The conviction of the applicant was pronounced on March 31, 1962 by the Special Judge, Santhal Parganas, long before the amending Act was promulgated. It is not hence possible to accept the argument of the appellant that the conviction pronounced by the Special Judge, Santhal Parganas, has become illegal or in any way defective in law because of the amendment to procedural law made on December 18, 1964." 6. This ruling clearly does not help the opposite parties in the present case. If the judgment of the learned S.D.O. had been given before the amendment in law in March, 1972, it would have been valid on the principle laid down in the ruling. Since, however, he had not concluded the case before himself on the date of the amendment, his subsequent judgment cannot be held valid. 7. The last ruling cited by learned counsel is reported in 1976 A.I.R. (S.C.) 1471. This is to the effect that it is a well recognised rule of interpretation that in the absence of express words or appropriate language from which retrospectivity may be inferred, a notification takes effect from the date it is issued and not from any prior date. This ruling is also not helpful to the opposite parties in any way. 8. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed and the order of the learned S.D.O. set aside. The case is remanded for a fresh decision by the Collector, Aligarh, after hearing the parties in accordance with law.