JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member. - This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated July 25, 1980 by the learned Additional Commissioner confirming the order dated March 17, 1978 passed by the learned trial court in a case under Section 198(4), U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 3. By the impugned order dated March 17, 1978 the lease of the revisionist is was cancelled on the ground of irregularities in allotment. Bani and Sant Lal were the complaints against the lease dated October 30, 1976 in favour of revisionist. Ram Prasad contested the case and stated that the lease was granted in lieu of his services to the nation in the Indo-Pak war, that he lived in the adjoining village, was employed in I.N.S. Khukhri, and was seriously injured in the war and was saved after the Ship Sank, and later in view of his services he was granted the lease which was also regular otherwise. The learned trial court however, found that the procedure for allotment under section 198 had not been followed and cancelled the lease. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the complaint by Beni, under Section 198(4) because such compliant could be fled only by the aggrieved person and the ruling reported in 1961 A.L.J. 472 and 1968 A.W.R. 844, that it was a new case carved out by the Court that no Munadi was done and that, strictly, speaking, this case is not covered by Section 195 for allotment or by Section 198(4) for cancellation of related leases. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that as laid down in the ruling in 1983 R.D. R.D. 221, if public interest in involved, any person can be deemed aggrieved, that in case a person is not residing in village and it granted a lease, every person residing in that village is an aggrieved person in support cited ruling reported in 1980 R.D. 145, that action was taken suo moto in this case and so the question of complainants being aggrieved does not arise, that there was no resolution of Land Management Committee to grant the lease and it was granted merely on the order of sub-Divisional Officer and, therefore, the Patta was irregular. The learned district Government counsel argued that the patta was in pursuance of the resolution passed in 1974 which had not been approved by the sub-Divisional Officer in 1975 but later in 1976 it was approved and so it must be deemed to be under Section 195, Z.A. and L.R. Act and the cancellation is under Section 198(4). 6. Factually considering the old case or grant of lease to Ram Prasad had been fully closed on March 5, 1975 when the Sub-Divisional Officer did not approve of the proposal of lease to the revisionist in the pursuance of Land Management Committee's resolution dated December 31, 1974. later, the revisionist applied again on October 6, 1976, the lekhpal and Supervisor Kanungo gave their report on October 12, 1976, the Tahsildar recommended on October 16, 1976 and the sub-Divisional Officer passed an order for grant of lease of 4 biswa land on October 26, 1976 and the lease was given on October 30, 1976. i have seen the evidence contained in the record to support this sequence and orders and find that the basic consideration was distinguished service to the nation for which the Tahsildar recommended and Sub-Divisional Officer granted the lease. It must be observed that every Patta need not be deemed under Section 195. If there is no provision of lease other that Section 198 in the Act, it does not mean that a grant by sub-Divisional Office must be included within this provision and becomes liable to cancellation under Section 198(4). Therefore, the basic jurisdiction of the learned trial court appears to be successfully challenged in this case. I find no reason to belief that the proceedings are covered by Section 198(4). Since the question of jurisdiction is raised. which can be raised at any stage, it also becomes necessary to admit evidence on this point and non the point of complaints being not aggrieved, which again raises a question of jurisdiction. The ruling reported in 1982 R.D. 874 shows that evidence can be admitted in a revision. Evidence has been filed to show that the complainants have got land and are not landless. Therefore, they cannot be aggrieved person. In 1961 A.L.J. 473 it was held that where the appellant was not in any manner directly affected or prejudiced by the order passed, he was not a person aggrieved. Evidence has been filed to show that the complainants have got land and are not landless. Therefore, they cannot be aggrieved person. In 1961 A.L.J. 473 it was held that where the appellant was not in any manner directly affected or prejudiced by the order passed, he was not a person aggrieved. In 1968 A.W.C. 844 it was held that a person aggrieved must necessarily be one whose rights or interests are affected are prejudiced and no merely one who suffers some psychological or imaginary injury. Since these complainant could not except to get allotment themselves, they were not such person who were direly affected in their interests by the lease in be not aggrieved persons, and since the specific requirement of complainants under Section 198 (4) is that the person must be aggrieved, the complaint was certainly not maintainable. 7. I need not discuss the question of irregularities because such consideration arises only when the application is maintainable. The learned trial court committed material irregularity in considering the question of irregularities in allotment and basing its order on such consideration. In fact, even the jurisdiction under Section 198(4) was not available because it was been seen above that the lease was not granted under Section 195. 8. If the State feels aggrieved by a wrongful lease by Sub-Divisional Officer, it can surely seek remedy by was of an action by the Collector or otherwise by filing a suit for declaration through the Gaon Sabha under Section 229, Z.A. and L.R. 9. As regards the plea of Suo motu action, there is no indication nor any such suo motu action was taken. There is no order on the record for taking suo motu action nor was there any notice to the opposite party to that effect. Besides, if the jurisdiction under Section 198(4) does not exist the question of suo motu action will also not arise. 10. In view of the above, the complaint by Beni and others in found to be not maintainable on two counts that they were not aggrieved persons, and that there was no jurisdiction under Section 198(4), Z.A. and L.R. Act, and so, this revision petition must be allowed. Accordingly, revision is allowed and the orders of the courts below dated July 25, 1980 and March 17, 1978 are hereby set aside.