JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by Sri G.P. Pandey, Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad recommending that the revision against the order dated July 15, 1972 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kunda, district Pratapgarh in Case No. 47/40/117 under Rule 115-N, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules may be dismissed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and have gone through the record. The opposite parties have not appeared to contest the revision in spite of due noise. 3. The facts of the case are as follows: The land Management Committee of village Kunda had passed a resolution on January 7, 1965 for giving permission to some persons for building their houses on plot No. 696. The revisionist, Mohamdad Hanif was one of those to whom such permission was granted. He obtained the permission through the Pradhan of Gaon Sabha by paying Rs. 25/- as premium. On April 8, 1965 Mohammad Kishwar Khan filed an objection. Thereafter the learned Sub-Divisional Officer by his order dated July 15, 1972 held that permission granted to the revisionist was irregular and that he should be ejected. The learned Commissioner has upheld the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. 4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the trial court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it in cancelling the allotment of land for Abadi purposes when the proceedings for cancellation were initiated not under Rule 115-N but under Section 198 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act which relates to the cancellation of lease for agricultural purposes. The record shows that Mohammad Kishwar Khan had moved an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 198. The application was rejected by the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated February 9, 1966. A revision was, however, filed and the Board of Revenue set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and remanded the case back to the trial court for deciding afresh. Thereafter the Sub-Divisional Officer passed an order on August 5, 1971 saying that Kiswar Khan after filing application did not make the Pairvi of the case and he proceeded to take suo motu action. In this order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated August 5, 1971 also the proceedings are described under Section 198(2), U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Thereafter the Sub-Divisional Officer passed an order on August 5, 1971 saying that Kiswar Khan after filing application did not make the Pairvi of the case and he proceeded to take suo motu action. In this order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated August 5, 1971 also the proceedings are described under Section 198(2), U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. In his impugned order, however, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer has stated that the proceedings are being taken under Rule 115-N. 5. A clear distinction between Section 198 and Rule 115-N may be observed. Section 198 relates to the order of preference to be followed in admitting persons to land as Sirdars or Asamis under Section 195 or Section 197. Sub-section(3) if Section 198 provides that the Collector may of his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment of land inquire in the manner prescribed into such allotment and if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular he may cancel the allotment. Thus, it is clear that Section 198 applies only to agricultural land in which Sirdari on Asami rights can be conferred. It has no applicability to any other kind of land. The wordings used in sub-section(3) are of his own motion and 'on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment of land'. As we have seen above, both in the application of Kiswar Khan and in the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated August, 5, 1971 deciding to take suo motu action, reference is only made to Section 198 and not to Rule 115-N. Rules 115-L to 115-N on the other hand refer to the allotment of Abadi sites situated in Abadi or in the waste land of the area which vested in the Gaon Sabha specifically for the purpose of construction of mills. Thus, proceedings under Section 198 and Rules 115-L to 115-N are legally quite distinct from each other. The order of preference laid down for allotment in the two cases is different. Even the authority prescribed fro cancellation of the allotment order is different in the two cases. Under Section 198 the authority to make the cancellation has been conferred on the Collector by the statute (though by various notifications the powers of the Collector have been conferred on various other authorities by the Government. Even the authority prescribed fro cancellation of the allotment order is different in the two cases. Under Section 198 the authority to make the cancellation has been conferred on the Collector by the statute (though by various notifications the powers of the Collector have been conferred on various other authorities by the Government. Under Rule 115-N, on the other hand, the authority is the Assistant Collector Incharge of the Sub-Division. Thus, to my mind, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer has exercised jurisdiction not vested in him while passing an order under Rule 115-N whereas he had initiated the proceedings suo motu under Section 198. 6. The learned counsel for the revisionist has also contended that the trial court has acted with substantial illegality in holding that the allotment of the land was irregular without assigning any valid grounds and that the proceeding were not maintainable as they were not initiated within limitation. As regards the question of limitation, Rule 115-N also provides that the Assistant Collector Incharge of the Sub-Division can take action either on the application of any person interested filed within three months of the date of auction or at any time on his own motion. Thus, if the Assistant Collector intends to act on his own motion, no period of limitation whatsoever has been prescribed. As regards the ground that the learned Sub-Divisional Officer has acted illegally in holding the allotment of land to be illegal without assigning any valid grounds for the same, I find that the learned Sub-Divisional Officer has indeed stated the grounds in his judgment. However, as the proceedings have been vitiated inasmuch as they were initiated under Section 198 but the orders have been passed under Rule 115-N, I do not propose to express any opinion on the merits of the case at this stage. The correct thing, to my mind, would be to remand the case again to the learned Sub-Divisional Officer for deciding the case afresh after following the procedure prescribed for proceedings under Rule 115-N. 7. The learned counsel for the revisionist has referred to Raghubir Singh v. Kan Singh, 1971 R.D. 421 in which it has been held that the result of the vesting was to bring to an end the rights of tenure-holders existing under the U.P. Tenancy Act and to grant fresh rights under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The learned counsel for the revisionist has referred to Raghubir Singh v. Kan Singh, 1971 R.D. 421 in which it has been held that the result of the vesting was to bring to an end the rights of tenure-holders existing under the U.P. Tenancy Act and to grant fresh rights under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Where there has been no vesting, as the area appertaining to the lease was always owned by the State Government and as such, the consequences set out under Section 6 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act do not come in play in respect of such areas, with the result that the rights of leaseholder save such leaseholders which become either Bhumidhars or Sirdars are governed by the term of their existing leases. The learned counsel for the revisionist has, however, failed to show that in the present case the land in suit had not vested in the State or that any special lease outside the purview of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act had been granted in respect of this land. As such this ruling has no applicability to the present case. 8. The result is that I hereby allow the revision, set aside the order of the trial court and remand the case to the Sub-Divisional Officer for deciding it afresh after following the procedure as prescribed under Rule 115-N of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules.