JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member. - This revision has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 29-3-82 passed by the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, in Revision no. 99/159/103 of 1981-82. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that proceedings under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act I of 1951 were initiated for cancellation of the lease granted in favour of Lakhan Singh on the ground that there were 32.05 acres of land in the name of his father. The revisionist Lakhan Singh filed an objection stating that the lease granted in his favour could not be subjected to cancellation inasmuch as the grant was made in accordance with law, that it was a landless agricultural labourer, that the allegations enumerated in the notice were baseless, that he had no land at the time of grant of patta, and that proceedings previously taken for cancellation of patta granted in his favour were dropped. The trial court found the lease invalid and accordingly ordered cancellation thereof vide its order dated 20-5-81. A revision was preferred against the said order before the learned Commissioner who dismissed the revision. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and persued the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the present proceedings for cancellation of lease granted in his favour were barred by the principles of res judicata as proceedings initiated suo motu against him in 1972 had been dropped, that the revisionist was living separately from his father and the land in the name of his father had no concern with him, that there was no evidence on record to prove that there were persons belonging to the Schedule Caste who were not granted leases, and that the view taken by both the courts regarding the publication and munadi was illegal and perverse. The learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the order passed by the learned Commissioner was legal and that the lease granted in favour of the revisionist was against the provisions of law. 5. The learned Commissioner found that it is only the Collector who is competent to cancel even the old leases after the enforcement of Act XXXV of 1970 by which the powers earlier vested with the Sub Divisional Officer for cancellation of leases were taken away and the Collector was empowered to proceed against the lease-holders of Gaon Sabha land. 5. The learned Commissioner found that it is only the Collector who is competent to cancel even the old leases after the enforcement of Act XXXV of 1970 by which the powers earlier vested with the Sub Divisional Officer for cancellation of leases were taken away and the Collector was empowered to proceed against the lease-holders of Gaon Sabha land. In view of this the orders dated 20-5-72 passed by Sri Jai Dayal Puri, the then Sub Divisional Officer, Lalitpur, were against the provisions of law and he had no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter and subsequently to drop the proceedings. The learned Commissioner has further found that the revisionist's father had 32-05 acres of land and hence the revisionist was not a landless agricultural labourer. The learned Commissioner has also found that the plots which were allotted were not announced by beat of drum and that proceedings of the meeting also did not disclose that announcement was made, and that there was no document of munadi. On the basis of this, he found that provisions of Rule 173 of the U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Rules were not compiled with. 6. It appears that the instant proceedings were; tarted suo motu against the revisionist. From the trial court's file I do not find that any show-cause notice was issued to the revisionist stating the grounds on which the proceedings for cancellation of lease were proposed to be taken. Rule 178-A (2) of the rules framed under the U.P. Act I of 1951 provides the mode of enquiry to be made in a proceeding for cancellation of lease. The said sub-rule (2) of Rule 178-A reads as under:- "178-A (2) Where the Collector makes an enquiry under sub-section (4) of Section 198, the Land Management Committee and the allottees of land shall be made parties and given an opportunity of being heard before final orders are passed." Where the Collector intends to proceed suo motu he is required to issue a show-cause notice to the lease h older stating the grounds on which the cancellation of lease was being proposed. In the instant proceedings no such show cause notice was ever issued to the revisionist. I agree with the view taken by the learned Commissioner that the instant proceedings were not barred by principles of res judicata. In the instant proceedings no such show cause notice was ever issued to the revisionist. I agree with the view taken by the learned Commissioner that the instant proceedings were not barred by principles of res judicata. By U.P. Act XXXV of 1970 the powers for cancellation of leases were taken away from the Sub-Divisional Officers and it was only the Collector who could cancel the leases. In view of this, the proceedings taken by the Sub Divisional Officer and subsequently dropped by him on 20-5-72 were a nullity in the eyes of law, and that order has no legal basis and the revisionist could not derive any benefits from that order. 7. The land which stood in the name of the father could not be added to the land held by the revisionist. From the provisions contained in Explanation 1 to Section 198 of U.P Act No. 1 of 1951 it is evident that the land held by the spouse or minor children only could be taken into consideration for determining a person not being landless. The Explanation-1 provides that a person, who or whose spouse or minor children held no land as bhumidhar or asami and also held no land as such within two years immediately preceding the date of allotment, is landless, and that a person whose main source of livelihood is agricultural labour is an agricultural labourer. From this it is evident that the land held by the father of the revisionist could not be taken into account while considering him to be a landless agricultural labourer. Thus, the view taken by the learned Commissioner in this respect is not sustainable' in the eye of law. 8. The learned Commissioner has also found that the plot numbers had not been announced by beat of drum and that there was no document of munadi. As held above, there is no show-cause notice on the file of the trial court which might have been ever issued to the revisionist. Thus, a material irregularity has been committed by the trial court while passing an order of cancellation of the lease granted in favour of the revisionist. The learned Commissioner has also not considered this aspect of law that no show-cause notice was issued to the revisionist. 9. Thus, a material irregularity has been committed by the trial court while passing an order of cancellation of the lease granted in favour of the revisionist. The learned Commissioner has also not considered this aspect of law that no show-cause notice was issued to the revisionist. 9. In view of the above, this revision is allowed, the orders of the courts below are set aside, and the case is sent back to the Collector for deciding afresh after issue of a show-cause notice to the revisionist.