JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This reference arises out of the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut, dated 16-5-78. 2. It appears that proceedings under Section 198 (4) of U. P. Act I of 1951 were initiated for cancellation of leases granted in pursuance of resolution passed by the Land Management Committee dated 15-1-76. On the report of Tahsildar dated 31-7-76 the proceedings for cancellation of leases were initiated on the allegations that the leases were granted not to the eligible persons. Notices were issued to the opposite, parties against which it was alleged that the leases were granted to them in accordance with law. The learned Additional Collector cancelled the leases on 15-10-77. 3. The learned Additional Commissioner in his recommending order says that L.M.C. was not made a party to the proceedings for cancellation of leases under section 198 (4) of Act I of 1951. The relevant Section 198 (4) reads as under :- "198 (4) The 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 lease, if any." The procedure for inquiry has been provided under sub-rule (2) of Rule 178-A of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Rules, which 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 allottee of land shall be made parties and given an opportunity of being heard before final orders are passed." 4. From the above, it is evident that the Land Management Committee and the allottee are to be heard before any orders are passed in proceedings under Section 198 (4). That has not been done in the instant case. The Land Management Committee had neither been made a party nor was it given an opportunity of being heard. An objection has been filed against the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner that the ruling referred to in the order of the learned Additional Commissioner is not applicable to the instant case. This objection has no force. It is apparent that Land Management Committee had not been made a party to the proceedings. An objection has been filed against the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner that the ruling referred to in the order of the learned Additional Commissioner is not applicable to the instant case. This objection has no force. It is apparent that Land Management Committee had not been made a party to the proceedings. The provisions of Rule 178-A (2) of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Rules are mandatory and non-observance of these provisions makes the order of the learned Additional Collector illegal and liable to be set aside. Consequently, the revision succeeds, the order dated 15-10-77 passed by the learned Additional Collector is set aside, and the matter is remanded back to him for proceeding in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 178-A (2) of the U.P. Z. A. & L.R. Rules.