JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member - This is a reference made by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, recommending that the revision filed by Dippa against the order dated March 26, 1973 passed by the Collector, Hardoi, in a case under Section 198 U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, may be dismissed. 2. I have heard that learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The facts are as follows: On the basis of the certain complaints received by him, Sri Jitendra Nath Ranjan, Collector, Hardoi passed an order on Oct. 31, 1972 for taking suo moto action under Section 198 (3) U.P. Z.A and L.R. Act for cancellation of certain leases granted by the Land Management Committee. After due inquiry the Collector passed an order on March 26, 1973 cancelling the leases granted to Dippa and Prahlad. Only Dippa has come up in revision against this order. 4. The grounds taken in the revision are, firstly that the Collector having once dismissed the application of Ramadhin and Naresh Pal Singh for cancellation of the lease of the revisionists, he had no jurisdiction to start suo moto action on the same subject; secondly, that the manner for inquiry to be made under Section 198(3) of Z.A. and L.R Act having not been prescribed by the State Legislature the action taken by the Collector was illegal and without jurisdiction; thirdly, that the revisionist had land within the prescribed limit and the cancellation of the patt for the entire area of lease is allowed without jurisdiction. 5. There is nothing on record to show that the Collector had once decided to reject the application of Ramadhin and Naresh Pal Singh regarding the cancellation of the lease of the revisionist. On the other hand, the Collector had held that while this application was time barred, he had decided to take suo moto action. 5. There is nothing on record to show that the Collector had once decided to reject the application of Ramadhin and Naresh Pal Singh regarding the cancellation of the lease of the revisionist. On the other hand, the Collector had held that while this application was time barred, he had decided to take suo moto action. Under Section 198(3) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act as then existing, the Collector was empowered to take action either on the application of an aggrieved person if it was made within six months of the allotment or take suo moto action either on the application of an aggrieved person if it was made within six months of the allotment or take suo moto action for cancellation of the lease within three years the learned counsel for the revisionist has cited a decision of a Division Bench consisting of P.C. Saxena and J.S. Gupta, reported in 1979 R.D. 84 in support of his contention that suo moto action was barred but this matter has been subsequently considered by a Larger Bench consisting of S.K Sarkar K. Kishore and H.N. Agarwal in a recent case (Nanhu v. Ramlakhan). The large bench has come to the conclusion that whenever the Collector takes action for cancellation of the lease on his own motion, even on the basis of a complaint made more than six months after the date of lease, his action shall be deemed to be suo moto and the period of limitation in such cases would be three years from the date of the knowledge of the irregularity in the grant of the lease. Moreover, in view of the amended law which has come into force with the enactment of the U.P. Land Laws Amendment Act, 1975, the Collector is empowered to take action for the cancellation of all the leases granted since the commencement of the U.P. Act I of 1951 till the expiry of a period of five years from date of passing of the U.P. Land Laws Amendment Act, 1975, i.e. till 1980. In other words, all leases, granted since the commencement of the U.P. Z.A and L.R. Act, have now been made liable to cancellation by the Collector. 6. In other words, all leases, granted since the commencement of the U.P. Z.A and L.R. Act, have now been made liable to cancellation by the Collector. 6. Now coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that the leases granted to Smt. Chitra, Moti, Mihi, Nek Ram and Parmu were valid and only cancelled the lease granted to Dippa and Prahlad as invalid. The ground for cancellation of the leases granted to Dippa are two: (i) he was brother of Nija, member of the Land Management Committed. Nija was present in the meeting dated September 26, 1971 which granted the leases, and no permission of the Collector had been obtained, thus, the lease was granted in contravention of Section 28(c) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act; (ii) Dippa had already 2 Bighas, 7 Biswas and 4 Biswansis land in his possession. 7. The finding that the revisionist Dippa is the brother of a Member of the Land Management Committee is borne out from the record and has not been challenged before me. It is also proved that no permission from the Collector for grating the leases was obtained. Thus the lease becomes clearly in contravention of Section 28(c) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. The Collector has, therefore, not acted with illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction in cancelling the lease. Being the brother of the Member of the Land Management Committee, no land could be allotted to Dippa by the Land Management Committee without the prior permission of the Collector. It is true; that the land already in possession of the revisionist was only 2 Bighas, 7 Biswas and 4 Biswansis which was less then the prescribed minimum limit of 1.6 hectares. Had the revisionist not suffered from the disability of being the brother of the Member of the Land Management Committee he would have been entitled to allotment of so much land which together with the land already in his possession which has not so far been removed, the revisionist was not entitled to any allotment. 8. As a result of the foregoing discussions I find no force in the revision and hereby dismiss it. 8. As a result of the foregoing discussions I find no force in the revision and hereby dismiss it. The Collector is, however, directed to consider the date of the revisionist for granting permission under Section 28(c), U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and if he deems it to be a fit case, he may give permission to the Land Management Committee to allot him so much land as together with the land already in his possession would not exceed an area of 1.6 hectares.