Judgment K.P. Singh, J. 1. THIS is a plaintiff's writ petition filed against the judgment of Shri P. C. Saxena, I. A. S., Member, Board of Revenue, U. P., Allahabad, dated 9-11-1975. 2. NECESSARY facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner were lessees of the disputed land and their leases had been cancelled under the provisions of Section 198 (2) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as stood prior to the amendment of the aforesaid section by U. P. Ordinance No. 18 of 1970 and by U. P. Act no. 35 of 1970. Since the leases were cancelled under the aforesaid provision, the petitioners filed suit for declaration of their Sirdari right in the disputed land under the provisions of Section 198 (4) of the Act as it then stood. The plaintiff's claim was negatived by the trial court and the plaintiffs could not get any relief in appeal and in revision also the plaintiffs remained unsuccessful. Aggrieved by the judgments of the revenue courts the plaintiffs have approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the revisional court has patently erred in negativing the plaintiff's claim on the ground that on the date of the suit under the amended provision of Section 198 of the Act there was no provision for filing a declaratory suit. It has been emphasized before me that once the right to file a suit had accrued to the plaintiffs under the unamended provisions of Section 198 of the Act, that right could not be snatched away by merely deleting the aforesaid provision. It has been contended that unless the amending Act had specifically provided for negativing the right accrued to the plaintiffs it could not be denied on the ground that there was no provision of law for declaratory suit on the date of the suit. 3. THE learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has submitted in reply that the amendment affected by the provisions of U. P. Ordinance no. 18 of 1970 and U. P. Act no. 3. THE learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has submitted in reply that the amendment affected by the provisions of U. P. Ordinance no. 18 of 1970 and U. P. Act no. 35 of 1970 related to procedure, hence if on the date of the suit the plaintiffs had no right to bring declaratory suit, it was rightly observed by the revisional court that the plaintiffs could not bring the suit and could not get the relief claimed in the suit. 4. I have examined the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. It is proper to mention the provisions of Section 198 (2) and (4) under the unamended Act;- "(2) The Assistant Collector Incharge of the Sub-Division may on his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an order of the Land Management Committee passed under sub-section (1) enquire in the manner prescribed into an allotment made under sub-section (1), and if he is satisfied that the Land Management Committee has acted with substantial irregularity or otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act, he may pass thereon such order as he thinks fit." "(4) Any person aggrieved by the order of cancellation passed under sub-section "(2) may institute a suit to establish the right claimed by him but subject to the results of such suit the order of cancellation shall be final." The amended provisions of Section 198 of the Act on the date of the suit read as below :- "198 (3) J The Collector may of his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment of land inquire in the manner prescribed into such allotment and if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular he may :- (i) cancel the allotment and the lease, if any and thereupon the right, title and interest of the allottee or lessee or any person claiming through him in the land allotted or leased shall cease, and such land shall revert to the Gaon Sabha, and (ii) direct delivery of possession of such land forthwith to the Gaon Sabha after ejectment of every person holding or retaining possession thereof, and may for that purpose use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary. (4) Every order passed by the Collector under sub-section (3) shall subject to the provisions of Section 333, be final." 5. I do not find any provision in the amending Act or Ordinance mentioned above that the right accrued to a party before amendment could be negatived. Moreover, the Ordinance came into force from September 18, 1970 and the leases in favour of the plaintiffs were cancelled by the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 27-1-1970, hence the right to file suit under Section 198 (4) of the unamended Act had accrued to the plaintiffs and in my opinion the same right could not be negatived due to the circumstance that the provisions were substituted later and nothing was indicated in the amending provision that the right accruing to a party was being snatched away in any manner by the amending Act. 6. THE perusal of the impugned judgment by the revisional court indicates that the learned Member, Board of Revenue, has not looked into the relevant provisions of law in the present case. THE learned Member is under apparently mistaken notion that the old section continued till the amending Act 37 of 1958. Hit observation in paragraph 6 of the judgment to the aforesaid effect is wholly wrong. THE correct position is that the provision for filing a suit under Section 198(4) continued till the enforcement of U. P. Ordinance No. 18 of 1970. In this view of the matter the learned Member has patently erred in appreciating the facts and circumstances involved in the present case. The learned Member has also patently erred In relying on the ruling wrongly mentioned in 1958 R. D. page 214 whereas the ruling meant by him is in 1959 R. D. page 214, but that ruling is wholly inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The provisions for filing a suit after cancellation of a lease under Section 198(2) of the Act came into force in pursuance of the provisions of U. P. Act No 37 of 1958. On the relevant dates, i.e. on the date when the leases were granted in favour of the plaintiffs and the dates on which the leases in favour of the plaintiff's were cancelled, the provisions for filing a declaratory suit after the cancellation of leases was there under the provisions of Section 198 (4) of the Act. On the relevant dates, i.e. on the date when the leases were granted in favour of the plaintiffs and the dates on which the leases in favour of the plaintiff's were cancelled, the provisions for filing a declaratory suit after the cancellation of leases was there under the provisions of Section 198 (4) of the Act. In my opinion, on the cancellation of leases in favour of the plaintiffs by the Sub-Divisional Officer a right accrued to the plaintiffs for bringing a suit for declaration of their right under the cancelled lease under the provisions of Section 198(4) and that right was not negatived due to the circumstance that the provisions of Section 198 (3) and (4) were amended. In this regard it is proper to mention the provisions of Section 6 (e) and (o) of U. P. General Clauses Act s- ****** I find that the learned Member Board of Revenue has not directed himself to the provisions of U. P. General Clauses Act and he has patently erred in applying the ruling mentioned in paragraph 7 of his judgment to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. IN my opinion, the impugned judgment of the revisional courts suffers from patent errors of law and is based upon mis-appreciation of facts and circumstances involved in the present case. 8. IN the result, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the revisional court dated 9-11-1975 negativing the claim of the plaintiffs petitioners is hereby quashed and the Board of Revenue is directed to re-examine the claim of the petitioners in the light of the observations made above and in accordance with law. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.