JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member - This is a reference dated March 16, 1979 made by learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, recommending to allow the revision application by setting aside order dated February 15, 1978 passed by learned Additional Collector, Etah, cancelling the Patta granted to the applicant as no notice specifying the grounds of cancellation was given to the applicant. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 3. It has been argued that as no notice was given to the applicant mentioning specific grounds for cancellation of the Patta, the whole proceeding has vitiated as has been held in 1978 A.W.C. 11 (Revenue). It has been further argued that the applicant was living separately from his father, therefore, the land of his father could not be tacked with the land allotted to the applicant as he was not a member of the family of his father. 4. It was argued in reply that in view of the U.P. Ordinance No. 3 of 1981 and the subsequent Ordinance of October 1981 amending Section 198 of Act I of 1951 the proviso to new sub-section 5 of that section has done away with such notices if the proceeding had been pending on August 18, 1980 and that the applicant was a minor, therefore, was included in the family of his father who already had 2.93 acres of land before the allotment, therefore, the applicant was not a landless agricultural labourer, hence the Patta was rightly cancelled and the recommendation should not be accepted. 5. The giving of notice mentioning specific grounds for cancellation of Pattas as was held in 1978 A.W.C. page 11 (Revenue) has been made mandatory by new Section 198(5) after the said two ordinances. The new sub-section 5 of amended section 198 runs as follows: - 198(5). "No order for cancellation of an allotment or lease shall be made under sub-section (4), unless a notice to show cause is served on the person in whose favour the allotment or lease was made or on his legal representatives." 6. The new sub-section 5 of amended section 198 runs as follows: - 198(5). "No order for cancellation of an allotment or lease shall be made under sub-section (4), unless a notice to show cause is served on the person in whose favour the allotment or lease was made or on his legal representatives." 6. But the proviso to the said sub-section 5 which runs as follow has done away with the necessity of giving soow cause notices where such proceedings were pending before the Collector or any other court or authority on August 18, 1980:- "Provided that no such notice shall be necessary in proceedings for the cancellation of any allotment or lease where such proceedings were pending before the Collector or any other court or authority on August 18, 1980." 7. In view of the said proviso of amended sub-section (5) doing away with the necessity of giving such show cause notices to the allottees in proceedings pending on the aforesaid date the pronouncement in 1978 A.W.C. page 11 (Revenue) is no longer applicable to such pending cases on the aforesaid mentioned date; hence this proceeding which was pending on the aforesaid date cannot be held to have vitiated in to for want of such notice. Therefore, the recommendation also cannot be accepted. 8. Admittedly the applicant was a minor on, the date of allotment and his father had 2.93 acres of land on the date of allotment to the applicant and was not covered by the definition of landless per explanation (i) to sub-section (1) of Sec. 198 of Act I of 1951 which runs as follows : - Explanation (1) - " 'landless' refers to a person who or whose spouse or minor children held no land as Bhumidhar, or Asami, and also held no land as such within two years immediately proceeding the date of allotment; and." It is, therefore, clear that the applicant was not a landless person nor was landless agricultural labourer and was not covered by Clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 198 of Act I of 1951 as he was not covered by explanation (i) to sub-section (1) of Section 198 as his father had 2.93 acres of land from before. 9. 9. At best the applicant can be covered by Clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 198 of Act I of 1951 as his father has got less than 3.125 acres of land who had only 2.93 acres of land from before, therefore, the allotment to the applicant of 3.12 acres of land was illegal up to the extent exceeding 3.125 acres of land together with the land held by his father as provided by Section 198(3)(i) which comes to .132 acres of land only of which legal allotment could have been made to the applicant to make the total of 3.125 acres together with the land 2.93 acres already possessed by his father. Thus the allotment only of .132 to the applicant can be held valid out of 3.12 acres and of the rest area is liable to be cancelled being illegal and to that extent the revision application is liable to be allowed. 10. In view of the above, the revision application is partly allowed and the Patta of the applicant only to the extent of .132 acres is held valid and to that extent the trial court's order is modified and for the remaining area the revision application is partly dismissed and the order of the trial court is confirmed i.e. for the remaining area excluding .132 acres the Patta of the applicant stands cancelled.