JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - Revision No. 157 of 1982-83 has been filed by Hori Lal, Revision No. 38 by Smt. Tarawati and Revision No. 39 of 1983-84 by Sardar against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, dated 14-7-83. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case in these revisions are that on the report of the Tahsildar dated 18-11-1980 proceedings under Section 198 (4) of Act I of 1951 were initiated against the revisionists on the ground that they had land from before and that they were not persons eligible for land in allotments, notices were issued. The revisionists objected that leases were executed in their favour in accordance with law. The leases were cancelled by the orders of the Additional Collector dated 12-4-82. Against that revisions were preferred before the learned Additional Commissioner who also dismissed the revisions, giving rise to the instant revisions before this Court. The grounds of revisions appear to be similar in all the revisions except the date of allotments, and they are, therefore, taken up together. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionists submits that leases were granted in the year 1970 after the approval of the Sub-Divisional Officer was obtained, that the second proviso to Section 198 (1) of U. P. Act No. 1, as it then existed provided that in case of clause (b) only so much of land was to be allotted to such a tenure-holder as shall be sufficient to bring the total area held by him to be 6 acres, that the courts below have held that Hori Lal, revisionist held 4.79 acres of land, Sardar held 3.77 acres and Smt. Tarawati held 3.77 acres along with the land let out to them, that at the relevant time there was no bar to land being let out to persons who were not landless agricultural labourers, that in Explanation 1 to Section 198 (1) the prescribed maximum was 3? acres for the landless agricultural labourers, that the revisionist Smt. Tarawati purchased the land in 1974 from Smt. Shanti Devi and, therefore, that land could not be added to the land that she already held and so was the case with other revisionists, that the limitation for moving the application for cancellation of patta was six months on the application of any person and three years for suo moto action at the relevant time, and that the Sub-Divisional Officer had knowledge about the execution of pattas and as such the State was estopped from challenging the validity of the pattas, that suo moto action had been taken for cancellation of leases but no notice had been given for taking suo moto action mentioning the grounds on which the suo moto action was proposed to be taken, that the U. P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act 1975, which provides for the cancellation of the allotment within five years from the date of commencement was ultra vires and by this amendment no amendment whatsoever had been introduced under Appendix III, serial No. 24 which provides six months limitation for cancellation of allotments and three years limitation for suo moto action and this Appendix has been made under the rules making power and under Rule 338 of the rules framed under the U.P.Z A. & L.R. Act, and in view of this the application was barred, by time, that the order of the learned Additional Commissioner is no order in the eyes of law as he applied no mind while holding that the order of the trial court was correct. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionists has also argued that it was the Collector who could have cancelled the pattas, whereas in the instant case the leases have been cancelled by the Additional Collector who was not the Collector, relying on 1935 A. W. C. 17 Shiv Lal v. Board of Revenue'. Relying on 'Ram Charan Lal v. Board of Revenue', 1984 R.D. 169, he submits that while proceeding suo moto a show-cause notice was a must to be given. 6. Relying on 'Ram Charan Lal v. Board of Revenue', 1984 R.D. 169, he submits that while proceeding suo moto a show-cause notice was a must to be given. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Additional Collector has all the powers of Collector under Section 14-A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and that the Additional Collector is notified for discharging all the powers conferred under Section 14 of the said Act, and that show-cause notices were issued to the revisionists, that the revisionists were not landless agricultural labourers and were not under the preferential category and, hence, the learned Additional Collector was justified in cancelling the leases. He also submits that the U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1982, in Section 8 provides for the following amendment in Section 198 of the principal Act: "(6) Every notice to show cause mentioned in sub-section (5) may be issued - (a) in the case of an allotment of laird made before November 10, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the said date), before the expiry of a period of two years from the said date." In view of the above provision, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the proceedings were within time being reckoned with from the date of knowledge to the Collector, and that knowledge by the Sub-Divisional Officer could not be treated as knowledge by the Collector. 7. Since these proceedings started on 18-11-80, it was the Collector who had jurisdiction for making inquiries under Section. 198 (4) of the Act. In Section 3 (4) of U. P. Act I of 1951, "Collector" has been defined as under : "3(4) "Collector" means an officer appointed as Collector under the provisions of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, and includes an Assistant Collector of the first class empowered by the State Government by a notification in the Gazette to discharge all or any of the functions of a Collector under this Act." This provision was added by Section 2 of Act XXXVII of 1956. By notification No. 365-/1-A-2-1 (2)/63, dated 8-12-68, which is reproduced below the powers exercisable by the Sub-Divisional Officers as Collector have been withdrawn in respect of Section 198 of Act I of 1951 : "In exercise of the powers under clause (4) of Section 3 of the U. P. Z.A. & L. R. Act, 1950 (U. P. Act No. I of 1951) and in supersession of notification No. 1756-I-A-1073-53, dated 11-6-53, the Governor is pleased to empower all the Sub-Divisional Officers in U. P. to discharge all the functions of a Collector under the said Act expect those under Section 195 of the said Act." In view of this, the Sub-Divisional Officer was now not empowered for making inquiries under Section 198 of Act I of 1951. 8. The learned counsel for the revisionists submits that an Additional Collector is not a Collector and it is the Collector as persona designata' authorised to make enquiries under Section 198 (4) of Act I of 1951. Section 14 of the Land Revenue Act deals with the appointment and powers of the Collector and reads as under : "14 Collector of the district - The State Government shall appoint in each district an officer who shall be the Collector of the district and who shall throughout his district, exercise all the powers and discharge all the duties conferred and imposed on a Collector by this Act or any other law for the time being in force." Section 14-A of the said Act deals with the appointment, powers and duties of Additional Collectors The section reads as under :- "14-A. Appointment, powers and duties of Additional Collectors.-(1) The State Government may appoint an Additional Collector in a district or in two or more districts combined. (2) An Additional Collector shall hold his office during the pleasure of the State Government. (3) An Additional Collector shall exercise such powers and discharge such duties of a Collector in such cases or classes of cases as the Collector concerned may direct. (4) This Act and every other law for the time being applicable to a Collector shall apply to every Additional Collector, when exercising any powers or discharging any duties under Sub-section (5), as if he were the Collector of the district." 9. (4) This Act and every other law for the time being applicable to a Collector shall apply to every Additional Collector, when exercising any powers or discharging any duties under Sub-section (5), as if he were the Collector of the district." 9. Now the Additional Collectors are appointed by the State Government and while appointing them it authorises them to exercise all the powers of the Collector under the Land Revenue Act, 1901. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that an Additional Collector has all the powers of the Collector and he is legally authorised to conduct enquiries as provided under Section 198 (4) of Act I of 1951. 10. On account of the discussions made above, I do not agree with the of the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist that it is the Collector as 'persona designata' who can only proceed with the enquiry under Section 198 (4). 11. The learned counsel for the revisionists, relying on serial 24 of Appendix III, Z. A. & L. R. Rules, submits that the instant proceedings were barred by time. In view of the provisions contained in clause (8) of U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1982 the proceedings were not barred by time as pattas were executed prior to November 10, 1980 and were well within time and also the knowledge by the Sub-Divisional Officer could not be treated to be the knowledge of the Collector. I am therefore, of the view that suo moto proceedings started under Section 198 (4) were well within time. 12. It appears that the learned Additional Collector decided to take moto action. From papers No. A-3/1, A-3/2 and A-3/3 on trial court's file it is evident that show-cause notices had been issued to Sardar, Smt. Tarawati and Hori Lal, respectively. The Collector has mentioned the grounds on which he was proceeding against these persons. In view of this fact I am of the opinion that show-cause notices had been issued by the Collector and the proceedings were properly conducted by the Collector. 13. The leases were cancelled solely on the ground that the revisionists were not landless agricultural labourers. In sub-section (1) of Section 198 the following order of preference was prescribed at the time when the pattas were granted :- "198. 13. The leases were cancelled solely on the ground that the revisionists were not landless agricultural labourers. In sub-section (1) of Section 198 the following order of preference was prescribed at the time when the pattas were granted :- "198. (1) In admitting any person as sirdar or assami under Section 195 or 197, the Land Management Committee shall subject to the rules framed or order made by the court under Section 178, observe the following order of preference - (i-a) a recognised educational institution for a purpose connected with instruction in agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry. (a) a landless agricultural labourer or an asami residing in the circle who does not hold any land whether as bhumidhar, sirdar or adhivasi; (b) a bhumidhar, sirdar or adhivasi, who is holding land less than 6 acres in the circle ; (c) a co-operative farm established under this Act holding land within the jurisdiction of the land Management Committee to enable it to possess a suitable area of land ; and (d) any other person ; Provided that the land allotted to a co-operative farm under clause (c) shall, if the registration of such farm is cancelled within two years of the allotment, revert upon such cancellation to the Gaon Sabha, and any person holding or retaining possession of such land shall be deemed to be a person occupying it without title liable to ejectment under clause (b) of Section 209 : Provided further that in the cases to which clause (b) applies only so much land shall be allotted to such tenure-bolder as shall be sufficient to bring the total held by him to be 6 acres ; Provided also that no person mentioned in clause (a) shall be admitted to less than three-and-one-eight acres of land, if available, but in no case to more than 6 acres." From clause (a) above, it is evident that a landless agricultural labourer who was holding no land and was residing in the circle was to be given preference over a bhumidhar, sirdar or adhivasi who was holding less than 6 acres area in the circle. 14. The finding of the learned Additional Collector is that the revisionists were not landless agricultural labourers and on account of this the trial court held that the pattas were not legally granted in their favour. 14. The finding of the learned Additional Collector is that the revisionists were not landless agricultural labourers and on account of this the trial court held that the pattas were not legally granted in their favour. I find that in coming to this conclusion, the finding of the trial court was correct and this finding was arrived at by the learned Additional Commissioner also. In view of this, I find no force in these revisions. 15. Accordingly, the revisions are hereby dismissed. 16. This order shall govern Revision No. 157 of 1982-83 and Revisions Nos. 38 and 39 of 1983/84/District Etah.