JUDGMENT D.S. Misra, Member - This is a revision filed by Surajmani Tripathi against the judgement and decree dated 16-1-1976 passed by Additional Commissioner, Faizabad in appeal No. 578 of 1975. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision are that on (sic) the allotments of plot No. 205 and 190 was made in favour of the revisionist by the Land Management Committee. On 17-8-1971 Ram Dutt and others made an application for the cancellation of leases. The revisionist filed an objection against this application. Therefore again on 13-7-1972 certain persons moved an application to the Sub-Divisional Officer for taking suo moto action for the cancellation of the said leases. On the same day the Sub-Divisional Officer took suo moto action and called for a report from the subordinates. On 30-6-1975 Assistance Collector Ist Class cancelled the lease in respect of plot No. 205 but upheld it in respect of plot No. 190. The State of U.P. preferred an appeal in respect of plot No. 190. The appeal was allowed by the Additional Commissioner by his order dated 16-1-1976 and reversed the order of the trial Court. It is against this judgement and decree that the present revision has been filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the revisionist as well the learned D.G.C. (R) and have perused the record. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist was that the Assistant Collector, 1st Class had no jurisdiction on the relevant date to initiate the proceedings for cancellation of lease within the meaning of Section 198(2) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and also had no jurisdiction to cancel the same. He has further argued that the learned Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal or to decide it. The learned D.G.C (R) argued that since the Sub-Divisional Officer had passed order in respect of cancellation of leases according to Schedule, the appeal lay before the Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner had rightly decided the appeal. 4. I have given may anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. By U.P. Act No. IV of 1969 the power in respect of cancellation of lease was snatched from the S.D.Os. which they had been exercised hereto fore and was vested in the Collector. 4. I have given may anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. By U.P. Act No. IV of 1969 the power in respect of cancellation of lease was snatched from the S.D.Os. which they had been exercised hereto fore and was vested in the Collector. No doubt a transitory provision was made therein that the pattas which were allotted before 8-6-1968 the S.D.O. would have jurisdiction in respect thereto but this transitory provision was done away with by U.P. Act No. XXXV of 1970 and thereafter it was the Collector alone who had jurisdiction to deal with cancellation of pattas within the meaning of Section 198 (2) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and therefore on 13-7-1972 the S.D.O. had no jurisdiction to take suo moto action in respect of cancellation of pattas allotted by Gaon Sabha nor had he any power to cancel the same on 30-6-1975. As a matter of fact the entire proceeding taken by him were without jurisdiction. Similarly the learned Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain any appeal from the order of cancellation of pattas only a revision could lie against it and so the Additional Commissioner had exercised the jurisdiction not vested in him by entertaining the appeal and by disposing it off. 5. The view the Collector alone had jurisdiction to take proceedings for cancellation of pattas under Section 198(2) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act after the Amending Act has consistently been held by the decision of the Board reported in A.W.C. 1977 page 1. (Reference No. 48 of 1973-74/Pratapgarh : Deota Din v. Bhagelu, in which it has been held that only Collector and not S.D.O. had the jurisdiction to cancel the lease under Section 195(2) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. In Reference No. 143 of 1974-75; Mohd. Shafi v. State of U.P. the Board has held that power to cancel the lease vested in Collector and not to the S.D.O. as reported in 1976 R.D. at page 251. In Review No. 65 of 1974-75; Mohd. Shafi v. State of U.P. the Board held the Collector only and not Assistant Collector Incharge can cancel the lease which has been reported in 1976 R.D. at page 303. In Review No. 65 of 1974-75; Mohd. Shafi v. State of U.P. the Board held the Collector only and not Assistant Collector Incharge can cancel the lease which has been reported in 1976 R.D. at page 303. Thus, I find that the order of the S.D.O. in taking suo moto action for the cancellation of pattas under Section 198(2) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was without jurisdiction and entertainment of appeal by the learned Additional Commissioner was also without jurisdiction. Naturally the orders passed by them are without jurisdiction and are nullity. 6. The result is that the revision is allowed and the orders passed by the Courts below are hereby quashed.