JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is a revision application against order dated April 30, 1975 passed by Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Gonda in a case under Section 198(2) of Act I of 1951 cancelling allotment of surplus land of village Gird, Pergana, Tahsil and District Gonda declared surplus under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act of 1960. 2. The learned Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division by his order dated December 11, 1975 recommended for setting aside the order and for sending the application of Sri S.N. Sinha, respondent to learned Commissioner Faizabad Division for disposal on merits according to law. 3. I have perused the record and have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned D.G.C. (R) Sri D.N. Srivastava. 4. The land in question was declared surplus under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960. The prescribed authority had allotted the disputed land out of the land declared surplus to the applicant. One Sri S.N. Sinha applied for its cancellation on the ground that the applicant was neither land-less nor resident of the village and did not come in the order of preference as provided in Section 198 of Act I of 1951. The learned Collector Gonda cancelled the allotment. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the learned Collector acted without jurisdiction in cancelling the allotment under Section 198 of Act I of 1951 as that Section was not applicable. It was further argued that allotment can be cancelled only under Section 27(4) of Act No. 1 of 1961. 5. It was argued by the learned D.G.C. (R) that sub-section (4) of Section 27 of Act I of 1961 was inserted by U.P. Act, 18 of 1973 and the allotment was of a prior date therefore, the learned Collector acted legally in cancelling the allotment under the provision of Section 198 of Act I of 1951 as it was settled according to the provisions of that section of the Act. 6. 6. Sub-Section (2) of Section 27 of Act I of 1961 empowered the Collector to make settlement of surplus land subject to the limit specified respectively in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 198 of Act I of 1951 but the allotment was not made under the provision of Act I of 1951 and it was made under the provision of sub-section (3) of Section 27 of Act I of 1961. Therefore, Cancellation by the Collector was not legal and the provisions of Section 198 of Act I of 1951 were not applicable. 7. Sub-section (4 to 6) of Section 27 were inserted by U.P. Act 18 of 1973 and prior to their insertion, there was no provision in Act I of 1961 for cancellation of allotment (prior to the insertion of sub-sec. (4) of Section 27 of Act I of 1961). 8. Remaining surplus land was to be settled by the Collector subject to the limits of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 198 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act in accordance with the order of preference provided in that section but the allotment was not made under Act I of 1951, therefore, it cannot be cancelled under the provisions of Section 198 of Act I of 1951. It can be cancelled only under sub-section (4) of Section 27 of Act I of 1961 by the Commissioner either on his own motion and on the application of any aggrieved person was empowered to enquire into such settlement if he has satisfied that the settlement is irregular. He may after notice to the person in whose favour such settlement was made to show cause, was empowered to cancel the settlement and lease if any. Therefore, the order of the Collector was beyond jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. 9. In view of the above, the revision application is allowed and the order of the learned Collector is quashed and it is directed that the application of Sri S.N. Sinha shall be sent to learned Commissioner, Faizabad for proceeding afresh according to law as provided in Section 27 of Sub-section (4) of Act I of 1961.