JUDGMENT Parmatma Singh, Member- These references have been made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, for setting aside the trial court's order dated 3-11-77 passed by the Additional Collector, Mainpuri in a case under Section 198 of U.P. Act I of 1951. 2. The facts of the case are that one Bashir Khan moved an application alleging that the Land Management Committee had executed irregular leases in favour of Tej Singh and others and the said leases be cancelled. The opposite parties filed their objections rebutting the allegations of the applicant. After taking evidence of the parties, the trial court cancelled the leases in question. Revisions were preferred before the learned Additional Commissioner who has recommended for setting aside the order of the trial court. Objections have been filed against the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner stating that the recommendation is partially wrong. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner relying on the decision reported in A.W.C. 1978, p. 11 (Rev), Hukum Singh v. Gaon Sabha, held that no notice containing grounds for proposed action for cancellation of leases was given by the Additional Collector to the lease-holders and hence the orders passed by the trial court were not sustainable in the eye of law. Consequently, the learned Additional Commissioner recommended for setting aside the order dated 3-11-77 and for remanding the case to the trial court for proceeding according to law. 5. The instant proceedings started on the complaint of one Bashir Khan. The application narrates the irregularities committed by the Pradhan in the giant of leases to opposite parties Tej Singh, Beni Ram, Kaim Singh and others. These proceedings under Section 198(4) were not taken suo moto but on the complaint of Bashir Khan. The decision reported in 1978 A.W.C. 11 Hukum Singh v. Gaon Sabha' relates to the cases where suo moto action was proposed to be taken and when such suo moto action is taken, the revisionists or the persons against whom action is proposed to be taken, must know the grounds on which the action is proposed to be taken so that they might meet the allegations. Since the proceedings against the opposite parties, Tej Singh and others were taken on the complaint of Bashir Khan, hence, the decision relied upon by the learned Additional Commissioner would not apply to the instant case. The decision referred to by the learned Additional Commissioner is applicable to cases where suo moto action is taken by the Collector in a proceeding under Section 198 of Act I of 1951. 6 In view of this, the reference made by the learned Additional Commissioner cannot be accepted, and the case is sent back to him for decision according to law keeping in view the observations made above. 7. This order will govern References Nos. 1118 and 1119 of 1979-88 District Mainpuri.