JUDGMENT Parmatma Singh, Member- This reference has been made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division. Agra, for setting aside the order of the trial court dated 25.5.1980 which was passed in a case no. 419/79 under Section 198 (4) U.P. Act I of 1951. 2. The brief facts of the case are that one Mohd. Sayed Khan moved an application alleging that land in dispute was his ancestral property and that he was in possession over the land but on account of a mistake the land has been entered as Banjar ; that a suit u/s 229-B was pending but the Gaon Sabha executed leases in favour of revisionist ; that the said leases be cancelled. 3. Revisionist filed their objections alleging that the leases executed in their favour were regular and that they were landless agricultural labourers. After hearing both the parties the trial court ordered cancellation of the leases granted to them. A revision was preferred before the Additional Commissioner who had recommended for accepting the reference and setting aside the order dated 25.5.1980 passed by the trial court. An objection has been filed by Mohd. Sayed Khan and others assailing the orders passed by the learned Additional Commissioner on 24.10.1980. They say that Kunwarsen has full knowledge of the case and no prejudice was caused to him ; that the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner deserves to be quashed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist alone and have perused the records. O.P. or his counsel is absent in spite of due notice. 5. From the trial court's file it appears that a notice was issued by the trial court for service on L.M.C. Through its Chairman the said notice was served Thus no opportunity for hearing was given to the L.M.C. In a proceeding u/s 198 (4) the Collector may of his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment of land by L.M.C. inquire in the manner prescribed into such allotment and if he finds that allotment to be irregular he may cancel the lease. The relevant Section 198 (4) reads as under:- "198 (4) 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) in the case of an allotment of land made before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 cancel the allotment and the lease if any, within five years from the date of such commencement ; and (ii) in the case of an allotment of a land made on or after the date of such commencement cancel the allotment and the lease if any, within five years from the date of such allotment or lease." 6. The manner of inquiry under Section 198 (4) has been prescribed under rule 178-A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, that rule reads as under :- "178-A here, the settlement of land made by the Land Management Committee, as approved by the Assistant Collector incharge of the sub-division is challenged under sub-section (4) of Section 198 by any person aggrieved or where the Collector intends to take suo motu action the Collector may pass suitable orders by way of stay of proceedings or otherwise. (2) Where the Collector makes an enquiry under sub section (4) of Section 198, the Land Management Committee and the allottee of land shall be made parties and given an opportunity of being heard before final orders are passed." 7. From sub-rule (2) of Rule 178-A mentioned above, it is evident that the Collector will have to hear the L.M.C. and the allottee of land before final orders are passed. In the instant case the L.M.C. was not even informed of the proceedings u/s 198 (4). Hence the procedure adopted by the Additional Collector, Etah was against the provisions of Rule 178-A (2). The applicants had also raised a question of land allotted to the revisionist being not vacant at the time of allotment. This aspect of the matter would also be looked into by the Additional Collector. In view of observations made above the orders passed by the Additional Collector dated 25.5.80 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside. The revision application is accepted and the order of the trial court dated 25-5-80 is set aside. In view of observations made above the orders passed by the Additional Collector dated 25.5.80 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside. The revision application is accepted and the order of the trial court dated 25-5-80 is set aside. The learned Additional Collector is directed to dispose off this matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the allottees of land and to L.M.C. within a period of six months.