JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division recommending that the revision filed by Chhedalal against the order dated June 5, 1972 passed by the Collector, Etawah, in a case under Section 198(2), U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, may be rejected. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and have also gone through the record. The opposite parties have not appeared to contest the revision in spite of due service. 3. Chhedalal, Rameshwar Dayal and Ranjeet Singh had given an application before the Collector, Etawah complaining that the Land Management Committee of village Madarkapur had given the lease of plot No. 64, area 3 acres in an irregular manner in favour of Inam Ali who was a resident of another village, and that neither any proclamation was done nor any meeting held in a regular manner. They further alleged that in the village there were a number of Harijan labourers whose cases had not been considered. The Collector rejected the complaint on the ground that it was time-barred. 4. The grounds taken in the revision are that the proceedings were within time from the date of knowledge of the lease, and the court was required to investigate if the leases were granted without Munadi and meeting, and if this allegation was correct, then the limitation was to be computed from the date of knowledge, that the Judgment of the trial court is arbitrary and non-judicial that the disputed land was reserved land and could not be allotted under Section 198, U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, and finally that the lease was given without meeting the Munadi. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist has in this connection cited Ram Bahadur Singh v. Sheo Pratap Singh, 1978 R.D. 219, in which a learned Member has discussed this question at length and has held as follows: "On the question of suo motu action, the learned Collector has taken a wrong stand that a prayer to that effect had not been made in the application. The learned Collector ought to have known that it is not a prayer in a private party's application that confers suo motu powers on him to move under Section 198, Z.A. and L.R. Act. The learned Collector ought to have known that it is not a prayer in a private party's application that confers suo motu powers on him to move under Section 198, Z.A. and L.R. Act. When the matter came up before him with a number of allegations of usurpation of Gaon Sabha land by O.P.I. and 3 to 5, the learned Collector, while not granting the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, ought to have seen whether suo motu action would be justified. It was self-evident that public interest was involved and the matter of the application did not concern the applicant's private interest. Whether the application was mala fide or not would be a relevant point to be seen, but the primary concern of the learned Collector would be to see if a prima facie case was disclosed for suo motu action, even if no prayer had been made for it. This course was only alternatively urged in arguments before him. Here the position is that a private person feels aggrieved that the land of the Gaon Sabha has not been allotted in accordance with the law and uneligible persons were in occupation of it. This implies that those who deserved the allotment have been deprived of their due. But such unfair and illegal allotment, being generally of a hush-hush or fait-accompli character and having the backing of powerful persons or groups in power in the Gaon Sabha and L.M.C., the knowledge of it may come late to private persons or even to the officers. Even if the knowledge comes to them within the period of limitation, they may for fear of consequences of disclosure or other reason of expediency may not come forward in time and when such is the position, the S.D.O. Collector must consider whether he is not required to act suo motu. For, the S.D.O. Collector the period of limitation of three years is from the date of his knowledge, and not from the date of the announcement of the allotment. So that he could make suitable enquiries in the matter meantime." 6. I am in agreement with the view propounded by the learned Member. For taking suo motu action, the period of limitation is three years from the date of knowledge of the Sub-Divisional Officer of the Collector and not the date of the allotment or its announcement or any other date. I am in agreement with the view propounded by the learned Member. For taking suo motu action, the period of limitation is three years from the date of knowledge of the Sub-Divisional Officer of the Collector and not the date of the allotment or its announcement or any other date. Thus, in the present case, the knowledge was given to the Collector on December 4, 1971 through the complaint of Chhedalal and others. Therefore, on June 5, 1972 when he rejected the complaint as time-barred, the Collector was still entitled to take suo motu action. His refusal to do so amounts to refusal to exercise jurisdiction. Section 198 of the Z.A. and L.R. Act has been enacted with the purpose of safe-guarding the public interest. By specifying the Collector as an authority who can cancel an allotment. A duty has been cast upon the Collector to safeguard the public interest and, therefore, it is binding upon him to take suo motu action if the facts justify it. The Collector cannot refuse to take suo motu action on a flimsy ground of the complaint being time-barred. If the period of limitation is three years from the date of knowledge to the Collector, clearly the law envisages that the Collector shall take suo motu action within this period of limitation. The only restriction would be that the Collector should be satisfied that it was a fit case for taking suo motu action. In the present case, the learned Collector has not applied his mind whether the case was a fit case for taking suo motu action or not. He has been clearly misled by the interpretation of the limitation application. 7. Disagreeing with the recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner, I hereby allow the revision and set aside the impugned order. The case is remanded to the Collector for deciding the question of taking suo motu action in the matter in the light of the observations made above.