JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member. - In this reference dated March 21, 1979, the learned Additional, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, has recommended that the order of the learned trial court dated February 2, 1978 may be set aside and the case be remanded for a fresh decision. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the record. 3. In the trial court, it was a case under Rule 115-P, Section 112-C(6) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules for cancellation of allotment of Abadi site and the cancellation of allotment of abadi site and the Complaint was dismissed as time-barred. The revisionist claimed his possession on the land in dispute while the lease was granted to the opposite party. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that in proceedings under Rule 115-N (Later 115-P) of the Rules, there was no limitation left after the amendment on March 15/16, 1972. The lease is dated June 18, 1973 and the compliant was made on June 18, 1973 and the complaint was made on June 5, 1975. Obviously, the bar has wrongly applied. The learned trial court and to consider the case on merits and decide the same. 4. The learned counsel for the opposite party has argued that the allotment was under Section 122-C of the Act and rule 115-L of the Rules. Its cancellation under Section 122-C(6) would be applicable and Section 122-C(7) bars application of Section 333 to any order passed under Section 122-C(6). He further argued that Rule 115-C also applied and house having been built on the site no cancellation is possible now. 5. It is seen that under section 122-C(6) of the Act, the Collector shall enquire, on the application of any person aggrieved, and if he is satisfied that the allotment is regular, the Collector will not cancel the allotment. The prescribed manner of the enquiry is given in Rule 115-P. The L.M.C. as well as the allottees are to be sent show cause notice and are to be given opportunity of hearing. And to such order passed under Section 122-C(6), the provisions of Section 333 of the Act will not apply. 6. The question now is what rode is passed under section 122-C(6) to which application of Section 333 is barred. And to such order passed under Section 122-C(6), the provisions of Section 333 of the Act will not apply. 6. The question now is what rode is passed under section 122-C(6) to which application of Section 333 is barred. This order under section 122-C(6) is cancellation of allotment of rejection of such prayer on satisfaction of the Collector that the allotment is irregular or not. The bar does not apply to any other order. In the instant case, the court did not enquire into the allotment being regular and there was no satisfaction of the court about a regular allotment or otherwise. The case was simply dismissed as time-barred, such dismissal is not an order under Section 122-C(6) and the provisions of Section 333 of the Act cannot be deemed inapplicable. I, therefore, find this revision petition/reference maintained. 7. As regards the provisions in rule 115-Q it has been misinterpreted by the learned counsel. This rule is an additional requirement to raise construction within the stipulated period of its breach is another ground for extinction of right of allottees but the rule does not provide for any protection of rights in case of compliance. The rights give in rule 115-R subject to the provision in rules 115-C to 115-Q which means the allotment could be cancelled under rule 115-P and the rights could also be extinguished under rule 115-Q. The opposite party, therefore gains no particular advantage by application of section 122-C(6) and other allied provisions and the proceedings have to be continued in the trial court an carried to a logical end in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed, the order of the learned trial court dated February 2, 1978 is hereby set aside and the case is remanded to the learned trail court to proceed and decide the case in accordance with law. 9. The next date before the learned trial court is fixed for July 10, 1974.