JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 15-9-83 passed by the learned Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in Revision No. 129 of 1982-83 arising out of case no. 2412 of 1979-80 decided by the Additional Collector, Lalitpur on 14-10-82. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on the report of the Tahsil proceedings under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act I of 1951 were initiated against Basantey, the revisionist, for cancellation of the lease granted in his favour on the ground that he was a resident of outside the circle, that the lease had not been given to him in accordance with the provisions of law, that there were 377 landless agricultural labourers including 94 Harijans who got the land after the allotment to the lessee, and that the lessee had 2-11 acres of land prior to the allotment. The lessee filed objection denying the allegations made against him and alleging that the lease was granted to him after munadi and agenda, that Myao and Chandawali were adjacent villages, and that most of the cultivators of village Chandawali were cultivating the land in village Myao and no account of this the revisionist could not be said to be a resident of outside the circle. The trial court after recording evidence of the parties and hearing them cancelled the lease and the revision preferred before the learned Commissioner by the lease holder Basantey was also dismissed. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 4. The trial court after recording evidence of the parties and hearing them cancelled the lease and the revision preferred before the learned Commissioner by the lease holder Basantey was also dismissed. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the findings of the courts below that as the revisionist had 2.11 acres of land on the date of the lease were perverse inasmuch as there was no evidence on record to show that he had any land, that the extract of Khatauni 1589-94 Fasli on record shows that he had acquired the land in 1373 Fasli and the lease was dated 8-9-62, i.e. 1370 Fasli, that the revisionist came within the categories (h) and (i) of Section 198 (1) of U.P. Act I of 1951 and was giving the lease after due compliance of necessary procedure prescribed by law, that the condition of a person residing in the circle was not in force at the time the patta had been granted to the revisionist in the year 1962, and that the show-cause notice had not been issued by the Collector but by the Ahalmad who had no authority to issue show-cause notice. 5. The provisions of Section 198 (1) of U.P. Act I of 1951, as it stood at the relevant time in 1962 were as follows :- "198. Order of preference in admitting persons to land under Section 195 or 197. - (1) In admitting any person as sirdar or asami 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 - (a) a landless agricultural labourer or an asami residing in the circle who does not hold any laud whether as bhumidhar, sirdar or adhivasi ; (b) a bhumidhar, sirdar or adhivasi who is holding land less than 6 acres in area in the circle; (c) a co-operative form 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. In the category (d) above, the words 'any other person' have been written. This does not indicate that the person should be a resident of the circle of the Gaon Sabha. In the category (d) above, the words 'any other person' have been written. This does not indicate that the person should be a resident of the circle of the Gaon Sabha. It appears that this aspect of the matter has escaped the notice of the lower revisional court. It is a fact that there is no evidence on record to prove that the revisionist had 2.11 acres of land prior to the grant of patta in his favour. Thus, the finding, in respect of the revisionist having 2.11 acres of land prior to the grant of lease is perverse and against the evidence on record. The instant proceedings were initiated without issuance of any show cause notice by the Collector. It is really unfortunate on the part of Collector to have proceeded with the matter without issuing a notice under his signatures. The alleged notice has been signed by the Ahalmad of the Court who had no right under the law to sign such notices. Under the provisions of Section 198 (4) the proceedings for cancellation of leases are to be taken by the Collector. 6. In view of what has been stated above, the orders passed by both the courts below are not sustainable in the eye of law and are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this revision is allowed and the orders of the courts below are set aside, and the lease granted in favour of the revisionist is held to be valid.