JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18.4.1974 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, dismissing the appeal No. 222 of 1972 district Jhansi against the judgment and decree dated 29.1.1972 passed by the Judicial Officer Revenue Jhansi dismissing the plaintiff's suit for declaration under section 229-B of Act I of 1951. 2. The plaintiff filed suit for declaration impleading State Govt. and Gaon Sabha as parties that he be declared sirdar in possession of the disputed plots which were leased to him by the Goan Sabha by resolution dated 20.11.67 and the lease was got registered on 24.10.70, that his mutation application was rejected, hence the suit. 3. Gaon Sabha did not contest the suit. 4. The State Government challenged the validity of the lease and alleged that no sirdari rights accrued to the plaintiff through the alleged lease. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 6. It was argued on behalf of the appellate that validity of the lease cannot be looked into by the Revenue Court as has been held in 1970 R.D. page 138, 1973 R.D. page 83. It was further argued that as the lease was got registered though on a subsequent date from the date of resolution it required on attestation from Supervisor Kanungo or revenue authority above him as held in 1964 R.D. page 370. 7. In reply it was argued that the registered lease being not a genuine document as held by the first appellate court it was rightly not relied upon by the first appellate court also and the findings of both the courts below cannot be interfered with and the rulings of 1970 R.D. page 138 and 1372 R.D. page 83 are not applicable to the present case as the registered lease was found not to be genuine. 8. Rule 177 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules read with Rule 138 of the said rules provide that the lease made annual rent of which exceed Rs. 100/- shall be executed by registered instrument. The leases of land rent of which is Rs. 8. Rule 177 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules read with Rule 138 of the said rules provide that the lease made annual rent of which exceed Rs. 100/- shall be executed by registered instrument. The leases of land rent of which is Rs. 100/- or less may be attested by any Revenue Officer not inferior in rank to the Supervisor Kanungo within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or some portion of the land to which such leases counter part relate, is situated. There is no provision in the rule for attestation of a registered lease even if the rent of the land leased is Rs. 100/- or less the lease can be granted by a registered instrument and if it has been so granted by a registered instrument its attestation by any Revenue Officer is not compulsory as has been held in 1964 R.D. page 370. Mutation in favour of the appellant was wrongly refused by the revenue authorities and the plaintiff had to file suit for declaration of sirdari rights under section 229-B of Act I of 1951. 9. The question for determination is whether a Revenue Court can look into the validity of the lease granted by L.M.C. in such a suit or not. It has been held in Rasala and Others v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, U.P. Lucknow Camp at Saharanpur and others, 1970 R.D. page 138 that "Fill an allotment is cancelled under section 198(3) the right, title and interest remains with the allottee and has to be recognised. The provisions would show that simply because the Gaon Sabha executed the lease in contravention of the rules the lease would not become void. It remain liable to be cancelled. Till it is cancelled by the appropriate authority no proceeding relating its validity can be gone into.........". In Jatashanker v. State 1973 R.D. page 82 it was held that "the power of cancellation rests only with the Collector of the S.D.O. and a Revenue Court deciding a case under section 198(4) is not competent to pass an order cancelling any lease executed by the Gaon Sabha in favour or an allottee. The competent authority is only the Collector or the S.D.O." 10. The suit has not been contested by the Gaon Sabha or the L.M.C. and it has not challenged the validity of the lease. The competent authority is only the Collector or the S.D.O." 10. The suit has not been contested by the Gaon Sabha or the L.M.C. and it has not challenged the validity of the lease. Unless the lease is got cancelled by the State Govt. in a proceeding for cancellation under section 198(4) either by the Collector or S.D.O. as the case may be it is not open to the State to challenge its validity in a regular suit under section 229-B of Act I of 1951. The only forum available to the State Govt. is under the provisions of section 198(4) of Act I of 1951. The State Govt. is not estopped from challenging its validity but the only forum it can avail of is the court of the Collector or the S.D.O. The position is not better or not worst than that of an aggrieved person as mentioned in that section. The lease has not been cancelled, Therefore no forum to the appellant was available under section 198. As the order of the Collector passed under section 198(4) is final per its sub-section 5 at present the position remains that unless the lease is cancelled under section 198(4) of Act I of 1951 its validity cannot be gone into in regular suit under section 229-B of Act I of 1951. In the present case the Gaon Sabha did not contest the suit and the lease has been proved to have been executed according to the resolution dated 20.11.67 and the lease was registered on 24.10.70, Its genuineness shall be presumed unless proved otherwise. The mere fact that the date of resolution was mentioned wrongly in the end of the instrument to be the date of execution and it was corrected by cutting the date of resolution which is already mentioned in the body of the deed did not make the document ungenuine or fabricate in any way as filed by the courts below. Therefore, the orders of the courts below are liable to be set aside and this is a fit appeal which deserves to be allowed. 11. Therefore, the orders of the courts below are liable to be set aside and this is a fit appeal which deserves to be allowed. 11. In view of the above this appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree of both the courts below are decrees of both the courts below are hereby set aside and the plaintiff's suit is decreed and he is declared to be sirdar in possession of the disputed plots and shall be so recorded in revenue papers.