JUDGMENT Parmatma Singh, Member- This revision has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act I of 1951 against the order dated 5-1-84 of the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division. Agra, rejecting revision no. 69 of 1981-82 and confirming the order dated 19.1.82 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sikandrabad, cancelling the resolution for allotment of land in favour of the revisionist. 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the Naib Tahsildar submitted a report after enquiry on the application moved by Amar Singh that the lease granted vide resolution dated 9-9-81 be cancelled, that the Tahsildar recommended to the Sub-Divisional Officer on 6-1-82 for accepting the recommendation of Naib Tahsildar, that on 19-1-82 the learned Sub-Divisional Officer accepted the recommendation of Naib Tahsildar, thereby cancelling the resolution dated 9-9-81. A revision was preferred before the learned Additional Commissioner who dismissed it, on the ground that this was administrative order and no revision was maintainable against such an order. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer is not merely an administrative order but a final order cancelling the resolution through which the allotment of land was made in favour of the revisionist, that by this order the lease granted to the revisionist would also stand cancelled without any notice to him and without affording any opportunity of being heard, and that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no legal authority to pass such an order when he says that he agreed with the recommendation of the Tahsildar. 5. The order dated 19-1-82 cannot be termed as an administrative order. This will amount to passing an order under Section 198(4) of U.P. Act I of 1951. Now, under the present law the Sub Divisional Officer has no legal authority to proceed and pass orders in a case coming under Section 198(4); the authority lies with the Collector. By cancelling the resolution dated 9-9-81 the lease granted to the revisionist also becomes baseless and hence the order of the learned Sub Divisional Officer dated 19-1-82 is not sustainable in the eye of law. The orders passed by the learned Additional Commissioner dated 5-1-84 and that of the trial court dated 19-1-82 are liable to be set aside. I, accordingly, set aside both the orders and allow this revision petition. The orders passed by the learned Additional Commissioner dated 5-1-84 and that of the trial court dated 19-1-82 are liable to be set aside. I, accordingly, set aside both the orders and allow this revision petition. The Collector may proceed in the matter under Section 198(4) after making the Land Management Committee and the revisionist as parties to the proceedings and after giving show cause notice mentioning grounds for the proposed cancellation, and affording opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned.