JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division recommending that the revision filed by Data Din Against the order dated august 28, 1972 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Handia, district Allahabad in a case under Section 198 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, may be rejected. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. On the basis of the report of the Lekhpal that the Land Management Committee had granted a patta to Datadin in an illegal and irregular manner, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Handia took suo motu action for the cancellation and issued a notice to Datadin on November 23, 1968. Datadin filed an objection on December 26, 1968. He also engaged a lawyer, Sri Hari Nath Pandey, Advocate, who put in appearance on December 26, 1968. On December 26, 1968, the case was adjourned to January 15, 1969 for evidence, and the counsel Sri Hari Nath Pandey duly noted the date. On Jan. 15, 1969 the case was adjourned to Feb. 22, 1969 and again the counsel Sri Hari Nath Pandey, duly noted this date. On Feb. 22, 1969 neither Datadin nor the counsel appeared. On the subsequent dates, May 7, 1969, August 10, and September. 1969 also neither Datadin nor the counsel appeared. On September 26, 1969, the Additional Sub-Divisional Officer passed an ex parte order cancelling the lease in question on account of various illegalities and irregularities. On January 15, 1972. Datadin filed on application for setting aside the ex parte order on September 26, 1969. The Sub-Divisional Officer has by his order dated January 26, 1972 rejected this application as time-barred. 4. The grounds taken in the revision are, firstly, that the order dated September 26, 1969 was ex parte and without jurisdiction as the village had come under consolidation operations and the trial court had ceased jurisdiction, and secondly that the revisionist had given sufficient reasons to set aside the order dated September 26, 1969 supported with an affidavit. 5. There is not the least justification for the contention that the impugned order of the Additional Sub-Divisional Officer dated Sept. 26, 1969 was without jurisdiction. Even if consolidation has come in the village this will have no effect on the proceedings. 5. There is not the least justification for the contention that the impugned order of the Additional Sub-Divisional Officer dated Sept. 26, 1969 was without jurisdiction. Even if consolidation has come in the village this will have no effect on the proceedings. The learned counsel for the revisionist has cited Khyali Singh v. State of U.P., 1975 R.D. 106 in which S/Sri B.R. Vohra and G.S. Sial, Members have held that proceedings for cancellation of lease under Section 198(2) of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act will be abated during pendency of consolidation of holdings proceedings. The learned District Government counsel has, on the other hand, cited Similesh Kumar v. Gaon Sabha, 1977 R.D. 408 in which a learned Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court has disagreed with above view, and has held that the consolidation authorities do not have any jurisdiction to decide the question of validity of the lease or the allotment, and as such only the Collector, or an Officer on whom the powers of the Collector have been conferred, has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the validity of a lease granted by the Land Management Committee and to cancel such a lease. I am entirely in agreement with the view propounded by the learned Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court. Thus, the position would be that the order dated September 26, 1969 cancelling the lease passed by the Additional Sub-Divisional Officer who exercised the power of the Collector, was within his jurisdiction. 6. As regards the question whether the revisionist had shown sufficient reason for setting aside the order dated September 26, 1969, I find that the only reason shown by the revisionist for setting aside the ex parte order was that consolidation had come in the village and the revisionist was under the impression that the proceedings will abate. This is not at all a sufficient reason. Ignorance of law is not a defence. Moreover, if either the revisionist or his counsel were under a mistaken view of law that the proceedings will abate, the revisionist or his counsel should have instead of absenting from the court, moved an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer for abating the proceedings. This is not at all a sufficient reason. Ignorance of law is not a defence. Moreover, if either the revisionist or his counsel were under a mistaken view of law that the proceedings will abate, the revisionist or his counsel should have instead of absenting from the court, moved an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer for abating the proceedings. The wilful absence of the revisionist and his counsel after due notice, however, would on the one hand show contempt for the lawful authority of the Court, and on the other, it may also show that the revisionist and his counsel were aware of the weakness of their case and may have thought it fit to absent themselves rather than to contest the case without any hope of success. The record fully established that the revisionist had been personally served with the notice and had full knowledge of the date fixed in the case. Thus the application for setting aside the order dated September 26, 1969, which has been moved on January 15, 1972 is highly belated and time-barred, and the learned Sub-Divisional Officer rightly rejected it. I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order. 7. The revision has no force. Agreeing with the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner. I hereby dismissed the revision.