JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is a revision against order dated November 5, 1976 passed by learned Additional Commissioner Agra Division, Agra dismissing appeal no. 115 of 1975-76 in a proceeding under Section 198(2) against order dated January 30, 1976 passed by S.D.O. Jasrana, district Mainpuri, cancelling the Patta of the application. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 3. It has been argued that even if father of the applicant had 7.14 acre of land it cannot be added to the land of the Patta of the applicant as he did not come within the definition of his father's family per explanation to Section 154 of Act I of 1951; that the patta was granted on January 24, 1966 an suo motu action in 1976 was belated; that under Rule 174-B and under then provisions of Section 198 the applicant was of the category of any other person provided in Sec. 198(1)(c) of Act I of 1961; that S.D.O. had no power to cancel the Patta. Reliance has been placed on 1982 A.W.C. 836. 4. It has been argued in reply that the concurrent findings of both the courts below should not be interfered with; that the applicant did not come within the definition of landless agricultural labourer; that the proceeding was maintainable. 5. No appeal remain provided against order od cancellation by U.P. Amendment Act No. XXXV of 1970, therefore, the appeal to the court of Commissioner or Additional commissioner against order of cancellation of Patta was not maintainable in 1976 and the order passed by the lower appellate court on November 5, 1976 was without jurisdiction as no appeal was maintainable. 6. The revision against the order of learned Additional Commissioner is not maintainable as the order of the learned Additional commissioner as held above was without jurisdiction but even the order of the S.D.O. cancelling the patta on January 20, 1976 was without jurisdiction. Therefore, this revision is the interest of justice. Therefore, this revision in the interest of justice is treated against he order of the S.D.O. although filed directly as rare and special care so that the order of the S.D.O. being without jurisdiction may not remaining in force. 7. Therefore, this revision is the interest of justice. Therefore, this revision in the interest of justice is treated against he order of the S.D.O. although filed directly as rare and special care so that the order of the S.D.O. being without jurisdiction may not remaining in force. 7. After U.P. Ordinance No. 18 of 1970 and U.P. Amendment Act No. XXXV of 1970 which came into force on September 28, 1970 and December 22, 1970 respectively and repealing of U.P. Amending Act No. IV of 1969 and not continuing provisions like S.23 of Act No. IV of 1969 the S.D.O. had no jurisdiction to cancel Patta and only the collector of the district has got the jurisdiction cancelling the Patta, therefore, the order of the S.D.O. in question was without jurisdiction, therefore, this revision application is liable to be allowed and that order of the S.D.O. is liable to be set aside and the case is liable to be remanded to the Collector of the district for deciding it afresh according to law after issuing fresh notice mentioning specific grounds for proposed cancellation of Patta. 8. In view of the above, this revision application is allowed and the orders passed by both the courts below are set aside and the case is remanded to the Collector of the district for deciding it afresh according to the aforesaid directions.