JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17-10-1984 passed by Sri A. U. Khan Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, confirming the order dated 29-9-1983 passed by Sri S.K. Sharma Additional Collector, Mainpuri, in a case under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act I of 1951. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that an application was moved by one Nawab Singh for cancellation of lease granted in favour of Dharam Singh, the present revisionist, on 20-3-1980 alleging that the lease granted in respect of plots nos. 336, 332, 333 and 320 was irregular and should be cancelled. Collector, Mainpuri sent the application to the Sub-Divisional Officer, for enquiries. In the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Dharam Singh filed an objection on 7-6-1980 alleging that the lease had been granted on 17-11-1975 in accordance with the provisions of law, and that the application moved by Nawab Singh was time-barred. The Sub-Divisional Officer submitted his report on 30-9-1980. Nawab Singh moved an application on 15-9-82 wherein he admitted that Dharam Singh was not in service at the time of grant of patta, and also prayed for withdrawal of his application. The learned Additional Collector, however, proceeded suo motu in the matter. By his order dated 29-9-1983 the Additional Collector cancelled the lease of the revisionist. Against that order, Dharam Singh filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner who also maintained the order of the trial court and dismissed the revision before the Board. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the entire proceedings for cancellation of lease were timed-barred, that the lease had been granted in accordance with the provisions of law, that one of the grounds for cancellation of lease that the father of the applicant had some land was not tenable in law, that in the proceedings the Collector had not conducted any enquiry and only relied upon the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 30-9-1980, that the complaint and the report was in respect of plot no. 332 and the order for cancellation also referred of plot no. 332 and the order for cancellation also referred to the plot number as being 332, whereas the plot allotted to the revisionist was no. 332 and the order for cancellation also referred of plot no. 332 and the order for cancellation also referred to the plot number as being 332, whereas the plot allotted to the revisionist was no. 232, that the revisionist was a landless agricultural labourer and after the allotment he was recruited in the Provincial-Arms Constabulary, that the suo motu action taken by the Collector was time-barred, and that no notice was given to the Land Management Committee as required under the law. 5. I find that the learned Additional Collector had cancelled the patta in respect of plots nos. 232, 320, 333 and 336. In the complaint of Nahar Singh s/o Nawab Singh plot no. 332 was written. The learned Additional Collector passed an order on 5-2-1983 that suo motu proceedings should betaken in the instant case. It appears that a show-cause notice was issued to Dharam Singh in respect of plot nos. 336, 332, 333 and 320. The Land Management Committee was also given a notice but in that notice no plot numbers were mentioned. In suo motu proceedings show-cause notices are to be issued to the parties, namely, the allottee and.the Land Management Committee concerned through its Chairman. In the instant, case the show-cause notice issued to the L. M. C. was improper as no plots numbers were mentioned therein. That implies that no show-cause notice was issued to the L. M. C. including for plots in respect of which the proceeding for cancellation were to be taken by the Collector. The order of the Additional Collector and that of the learned Additional Commissioner are for plot no. 232, whereas in the show-cause notice issued to the revisionist plot no. 232 had not at all been mentioned. From this, it is evident that the show-cause notice issued to the revisionist was not proper. 6. The learned Additional Collector says that the father of the revisionist had some land prior to the grant of patta and, hence, he could not be termed as a landless agricultural labourer. It appears that the provisions of Explanation 1 to Section 198 escaped the notice of the learned Additional Collector. 6. The learned Additional Collector says that the father of the revisionist had some land prior to the grant of patta and, hence, he could not be termed as a landless agricultural labourer. It appears that the provisions of Explanation 1 to Section 198 escaped the notice of the learned Additional Collector. Explanation 1 to the said section reads as under :- "Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-section- (1) Landless refers to a person who or whose spouse or minor children hold no land as bhumidhar or asami, and also held no land as such within two years immediately preceding the date of allotment" From the above Explanation attached to Section 198, it is evident that the land held by the father of the revisionist could not be added to that of the revisionist. 7. The learned Additional Collector says that the copy of the agenda has been filed but there is no copy of munadi. The records pertaining to allotments of land are kept by the Land Management Committee and it was not at all the responsibility of the revisionist to have filed the copies of the agenda and the proclamation. The learned Additional Collector has wrongly thrown this responsibility regarding the proclamation on the revisionist. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist that no enquiry was conducted by the Additional Collector is not correct. The file of the trial court shows that evidence was taken by the Additional Collector and, hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist on this score is not acceptable. 9. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that in view of the amended provisions of sub-sections (4) and (6) of Section 198 of U. P. Act I of 1951, the instant proceedings were time-barred. Section 198 (4) and (6), as amended by the U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act XX of 1982, provide as under :- "198 (4) Collector may of his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment of land inquire in the manner prescribed into such allotment and if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular, he may cancel the allotment and the lease, if any. (6) Every notice to show cause mentioned in sub-section 5 may be issued : (a) in the case of an allotment of land 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 ; and (b) in the case of an allotment of land on or after the said date, before the expiry of a period of five years from the date, of such allotment or lease". In the instant case the lease bad been granted in the year 1975. Hence, a show-cause notice could have been issued upto November 10, 1982. In the instant case, the show-cause notice was issued on 17-2-1983. It is thus evident that the instant proceedings were time-barred and the Collector had ceased to have any power for issuance of a notice in respect of the lease granted in the year 1975 after November 1982. 10. The learned Additional Collector has failed to verify the fact whether the revisionist was in service at the time when the patta was granted to the revisionist. He should have called the officer who had issued the certificate and should have enquired about the facts. The very purpose of enquiry under Section 198 (4) is to find out the correct facts and to look into the observance of rules prescribed for the grant of leases. 11. In view of the above observations, the orders passed by the learned Additional Collector and the learned Additional Commissioner are not sustainable under the law. Accordingly, this revision is allowed and the orders of the courts below are set aside.