JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This reference has been made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, for setting aside the order of the trial court dated 2-5-85 and for remanding the matter to the trial court for a fresh decision on merits. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Uttam Singh, Pran Singh and Musha Singh, sons of Hamir Singh, moved an application under Section 198(4) for cancellation of lease granted in favour of opposite parties nos. 1 to 5 alleging that they had been leased out land by the Land Management Committee in an irregular manner, and that on the disputed plots the applicants constructed their houses and well and they were in long possession there of, that the lease holders belonged to one family and were living together, that on the land there were 100 trees of neem and mango etc., that proceedings under Rule 115-C were initiated earlier in which it was held that the possession of the applicants was old one, and that no proclamation was made before the grant of leases. An enquiry was conducted through the Tahsildar who reported that proceedings under Rule 115-C were initiated against the applicants who were evicted from the land in question. By an order dated 2-5-85 the trial court rejected the application for cancellation. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionists submits that no notice to the land management committee was issued, that from the report of the Lekhpal it was evident that there were trees on the laud in dispute. The learned counsel for Siya Ram, Opposite Party, submits that an enquiry was conducted by the Tahsildar and it was found that no illegality was committed in the grant and consequently the application of the revisionists was rejected. 5. I find that in the instant case a unique method has been devised by the learned Additional Collector in deciding the matter on the report of the Tahsildar and the Sub-divisional Officer. The provisions contained under Section 198 (4) of Act I of 1951 make it incumbent on the Collector to make an enquiry himself in the manner prescribed under Rule 178-A (2) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules. Rule 178-A (2) reads as under :- "178-A (2). The provisions contained under Section 198 (4) of Act I of 1951 make it incumbent on the Collector to make an enquiry himself in the manner prescribed under Rule 178-A (2) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules. Rule 178-A (2) 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." 6. From this, it is evident that in proceedings under Section 198(4) the allottee and the L.M.C. are necessary parties, any orders passed by the Collector without making them a party and without affording them an opportunity of hearing, are not in accordance with the provisions contained in the relevant rules. In the instant case this has not been done. 7. I, therefore, agree with the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner that the matter should be enquired into by the Collector in accordance with the provisions of law. Accordingly, the revision is allowed, the order dated 2-5-85 is set aside, and the case is remanded to the trial court for a decision afresh keeping in view the observations made by the learned Additional Commissioner and also after making a local inspection.