JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - The main grievance and ground for review in this case is that the proceedings are void ab-initio. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have also peruse the record. 3. This ground was not taken in the revision application dated July 1, 1974. The reference was accepted and revision dismissed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue on July 25, 1980. Thereafter, in the review application dated August 21, 1980 for the first time it has been, placed that the proceedings under Section 198 were void ab-initio. The learned counsel explained that there were no proceedings at all before the learned trial court. The enquiry was done by the Tahsildar and the S.D.O. merely approved the report on Jan. 13, 1966. This was deemed to be cancellation of the lease under Section 198 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, and later on, the appeal was filed before the learned Additional Commission, Rohilkhand Division, Bareilly, who set aside the order dated January 13, 1966 and remanded the case for writing the judgment afresh according to law by his order dated August 17, 1968. It is to be noted that the report of the Tahsildar dated December 11, 1965 which was approved by the S.D.O. on January 13, 1966. was a report written as if in a correction of papers case, although the enquiry started on a complaint of Pirumal dated April 30, 1965, sent by the Collector to S.D.O. and by S.D.O. to Tahsildar for enquiry and report, that the lease given to Mohd. Mian by fraud be cancelled. The Tahsildar had stated that the lease of 5 acres of land to Mohd. Mian was a clear fraud on the Land Management Committee and contravention of Section 198 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. He further stated that obviously Sirdari rights could not accrue in the bed of a river and a fictitious entry on the basis of surreptitious lease was fit to be rectified. The proposal was for striking off the entry of Sirdar in the name of Mohd. Mian in Khatauni Khata 43 in Arazi Jadoopur. 4. From the above facts, it appears that this was by mistake treated as correction of papers case and the Sirdari entry in favour of Mohd. Mian was sought to be corrected. The proposal was for striking off the entry of Sirdar in the name of Mohd. Mian in Khatauni Khata 43 in Arazi Jadoopur. 4. From the above facts, it appears that this was by mistake treated as correction of papers case and the Sirdari entry in favour of Mohd. Mian was sought to be corrected. Even if the Land Management Committee had given a patta in favour of Mohd. Mian for this land in the bed of river, it could only be his Assami land, but a separate correction of papers case would be the right course for ordering any correction. 5. However, in pursuance of the order dated February 17, 1968 by the learned Additional Commissioner, Rohilkhand Division, Bareilly, the case was remanded to the S.D.O. who passed order dated July 24, 1968, allowed the parties to produce evidence but again a revision petition was moved against this order and, ultimately, the Member, Board of Revenue by his order dated August 11, 1971 allowed the revision, set aside the S.D.O.'s order dated July 24, 1968 and directed the S.D.O. to confine himself to the appellate order dated February 17, 1968 by which he was only required to make a fresh order in accordance with law. 6. It is a pity that it was not noticed that no enquiry was done by the competent court under Section 198 of the U.P. Z. A. and L.R. Act. If it was intended to take up proceedings under Section 198, the S.D.O. had to make an enquiry and should not; have been restrained in his enquiry by order dated August 11, 1971. It was being too technical about enforcing the earlier order of the learned Additional Commissioner dated February 17, 1968, without considering what were the original proceedings about and what were the requirements of law; in these proceedings under Section 198 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. When the S.D.O. had written his judgment under Section 198 on May 25, 1974, it was assailed on various grounds in the revision filed on July 1, 1974. Strangely enough, in that revision petition in para 4 and 5, the applicant accepted that the evidence of the parties was there, although this evidence had all been taken by the Tahsildar. Before the Member, Board of Revenue also, the point was not raised about no enquiry having been done by the S.D.O. 7. Strangely enough, in that revision petition in para 4 and 5, the applicant accepted that the evidence of the parties was there, although this evidence had all been taken by the Tahsildar. Before the Member, Board of Revenue also, the point was not raised about no enquiry having been done by the S.D.O. 7. In the judgment dated July 25, 1980 given in the revision petition against the order of the S.D.O. dated May 25, 1974 under Section 198, there is no obvious mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, if the evidence on record is accepted. But even the acceptance by the parties, of the evidence produced before the Tahsildar cannot make this enquiry acceptable in law as proceedings under Section 198. As a result, the greatest inherent mistake is there that the basis of the order dated May 25, 1974 which is the enquiry or proceedings under Section 198, is missing. Surely, no order under Section 198 could be passed, or sustained, if its basis, the necessary enquiry by the competent court, was missing. In this view of he matter, the review application has a perfect justification to be allowed, for no notice being taken of a judgment without enquiry provided for in law constitutes a mistake apparent on the face of the record. 8. For correcting the mistakes committed in this case by in attention on different occasions mentioned above, we will have to go back to the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue dated August 11, 1971. That order has to he set aside and the order of the learned S.D.O. dated July 24, 1968 has to be confirmed to bring these proceedings under Section 198 on the right track. In consequence, the subsequent orders dated May 25, 1974 and July 25, 1980 will also have to be set aside. It is obvious that in view of the fact that no enquiry at all was done by the court competent at the time to conduct enquiry, the above three orders were passed exercising jurisdiction, illegally and not vested in the respective courts. For the same reason, a mistake apparent on the face of the record, must be deemed to have occurred in the last judgment dated July 25, 1980. 9. No notice to the applicant was given for the cancellation of the Patta. Therefore, too, the whole proceedings were vitiated. 10. For the same reason, a mistake apparent on the face of the record, must be deemed to have occurred in the last judgment dated July 25, 1980. 9. No notice to the applicant was given for the cancellation of the Patta. Therefore, too, the whole proceedings were vitiated. 10. In consequence, we allow the review application, set aside the order dated August 11, 1571 by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, subsequent order dated may 25, 1974 by the learned S.D.O. and the order dated July 25, 1980 by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, and remand the case to the Collector, Pilibhit, who is the competent court now, for enquiry and decision under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, according to law, after giving the required notice mentioning specific grounds for the proposed cancellation of Patta.