JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is a reference dated July 30, 1974 made by learned Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, recommending to reject the Revision Application of the applicant against order dated April 30, 1973 passed by Collector Fatehpur, dismissing application of the applicants dated August 10, 1971 for cancelling the allotment dated July 1, 1970 made to the opposite party. 2. Objection was filed by the appellants against the reference on August 13, 1974. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 4. It was argued on behalf of the applicant that by Act XXXV of 1970 which came into force on December 20, 1970 under Section 198(3) of the Act only the Collector was empowered to make enquiry and to pass orders for cancellation of Pattas. New Section 198(4) of the Act added by Act XXX of 1975 provided 5 years limitation and no limitation was provided for action to be taken by the Collector under Section 198(3) of Act I of 1951 because by U.P. Land Laws Amendment Act IV of 1969 Collector was empowered in place of the Assistant Collector by its Section 14 and by amendment of Schedule II of the Act by its Section 22 but no amendment was made in Schedule III of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules at Serial 24 where six months limitation is for action to be taken under Section 198(2) of the Act but no limitation has been provided for action to be taken under Section 198(3) of the Act, therefore, three years limitation shall apply under Article 137 of the Indian Limitation Act for proceeding under Section 198(3) of the Act. It was further argued that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the applications and the application for condoning delay was not properly considered. 5. It was argued in reply that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to such applications. Reliance has been placed on Akchhaibar v. Sriram, 1972 R.D. 426 It was further argued that limitation of S1. No. 24 of III Schedule of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules applied to both Sections 198(2) of 198(3) of the Act. 6. In my considered opinion by U.P. Act XXXV of 1970 which came into force on December 29, 1970 and by U.P. Act IV of 1969 which came into force on September 1, 1969. No. 24 of III Schedule of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules applied to both Sections 198(2) of 198(3) of the Act. 6. In my considered opinion by U.P. Act XXXV of 1970 which came into force on December 29, 1970 and by U.P. Act IV of 1969 which came into force on September 1, 1969. Collector was empowered to take action under Section 198(3) of the Act and was substituted in the Act in Schedule II of the Act at Serial No. 20 and 20-A but in Schedule III of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules at Serial No. 24 the entries were not amended because Section 23 of Amending Act No. IV of 1969 empowered the Assistant Collector to remain vested with power of cancellation and enquiry under Old Section 198(2) of the Act regarding Pattas granted under Section 198(1) of the Act prior to 28th day of June 1968. Section 7 of Act XXXV of 1975 deleted provisions of Serial 20 and 20-A of Schedule II of the Act and no transitory provisions were enacted like provision of Section 23 of amending U.P. Act No. IV of 1969. But the fact remains that no limitation was provided in Schedule III of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules for action to be taken by the COllector under Section 198(3) of the amended section. The reason for omitting to provide for limitation under Section 198(3) of the Act might have been the above mentioned reason but it cannot in any way be a sound reason for applying six months limitation from the date of the Patta for an application moved under Section 198(3) of the Act. When no limitation has been provided, the limitation provided in Article 137 of the Limitation Act of 3 years shall be applicable to such applications under Section 198(3) of the Act and the limitation provided for applications for action under old Section 198(2) of the Act provided in Schedule III of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules at Serial No. 24(1) cannot be made applicable, therefore, the order of the learned Collector that the application of the applicant was time barred is illegal and cannot be allowed to stand and the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner also cannot be accepted. 7. 7. In my considered opinion Section 5 of the limitation Act is applicable to applications for action under Section 198(3) of Act I of 1951 because Section 5 applies to appeals or any application other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the C.P.C. Word application in Section 5 was added by Act XXXVI of 1963 and according to wordings of Section 5 of the Old Act the provisions thereof could not be made applicable to any and every application but only to those to which they were made specifically applicable by statute. This position has been changed by the wordings of Section 5 of the present Act of 1963. By the use of expression "any application" this Section 5 will now apply on its own force to all applications and it will no longer to be necessary to extend its benefit by any statute. In the ruling reported in 1972 R.D. 426 (supra) the matter was not considered in this light, hence it is not a good law and I hold that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to application for action under Section 198(3) of the Act and the learned Collector in not considering the application for condonation has acted illegally. 8. In view of the above, the revision application is liable to be allowed and is hereby allowed and the order of the learned Collector is set aside and the case is remanded to the Collector of the district for proceeding afresh in the matter as the application of the applicants was within time, being within three years from the date of the Patta as 3 years limitation is applicable to applications under Section 198(3) of Act I of 1951.