JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a revision petition filed by Kanchan against the order dated November 2, 1973 passed by Sri N.S. Ansari, Collector, Etawah in proceedings under Section 198(2) of the UPZA and LR Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record. 3. The revisionist Kanchan moved an application before the Collector on October 6, 1971 for the cancellation of leases executed in favour of Shyam Sunder, Balakram, Moti Lal and Ramadhin by the Land Management Committee. At first the Collector passed an order on June 27, 1972 to the effect that suo moto action under Section 198(2) UPZA and LR Act may be taken. Thereafter on November 2, 1973 the Collector passed an order cancelling the proceedings under Section 198(2). This has been challenged in the present revision. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the learned Collector committed material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction that he did not consider the pleadings of the parties or their evidence, that no issues were framed and no sufficient opportunity was given, and thus the impugned order is no order in the eyes of law. 5. The impugned order of the learned Collector cannot be sustained. It is a vague order which is based on conjectures and not on evidence on record. The learned Collector had observed as follows :- "Excluding Shyam Sunder, the names of the remaining three persons certainly appear to have been interpolated in the Proceedings Register subsequently but they are all landless persons." The above observation of the learned Collector is strange, as having held that no resolution of the Land Management Committee had been passed in a regular manner in favour of the three lessees whose names were subsequently interpolated, he tries to connone this irregularity on the ground that they were landless persons. However, if no resolution has been passed by the Land Management Committee for granting lease to any person, that lease has got to be cancelled under Section 198(2) UPZA and LR Act, and cannot be validated on the ground of the lessee being landless. However, if no resolution has been passed by the Land Management Committee for granting lease to any person, that lease has got to be cancelled under Section 198(2) UPZA and LR Act, and cannot be validated on the ground of the lessee being landless. Again, it has been stated by the revisionist in his application that plot No. 560 which was also leased out was not vacant land at all but had a Khalihan, a Margahat as well as trees and pucca well of the revisionist. It has been held in Joga v. State of U.P. 1977 RD 266 that the first requirement before any land can be allotted by the land Management Committee is that it should be vacant land and the second requirement is that it should either have vested in the Gaon Sabha under Section 117 or should have come into the possession of the Land Management Committee under any provision of the Act. This aspect of the matter has also been ignored by the learned Collector. 6. Again, it had been specifically alleged by the revisionist that Shyam Sunder was not landless but had 50 to 55 Bighas of cultivation through his father and that he was the only son of a member of the Land Management Committee. No finding has been given on this question and this aspect has also been ignored by the learned Collector. The learned Collector has observed that it was not proper to interfere with the Pattas at this stage. This observation of the learned Collector clearly constitutes failure to exercise jurisdiction as the authority to cancel the leases granted by the Land Management Committee has been conferred specifically on the Collector. 7. The Learned Additional Commissioner has raised the question of limitation and has referred to the decision in 1972 R.D. page 426. However, the law provides that the Collector may take suo motu action on facts coming into his knowledge. In the present case, the Collector had indeed ordered for suo motu action. In such a case the period of limitation will count from the date of the fact coming to the notice of the Collector. Judged from angle, suo motu action was within time. 8. The result is that I hereby allow the revision and set aside the impugned order. The Collector shall now conclude the proceedings in accordance with law and thereafter pass an appropriate final order.