JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This recommendation has been made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra for setting aside the order dated 12-2-80 passed by the trial court and for remanding the case back to the trial court for decision afresh in accordance with law. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Ram Sanehi s/o Sri Jawala Prasad r/o Buyauti moved an application u/s 198 (4) of the Act I of 1951 against Sobha Ram and others alleging there in that the L.M.C. has granted leases in favour of the opposite parties against the provision of law; that neither the agenda was circulated nor the proclamation was made; that some portion of the land is a public path way. The matter was sent to the trial court for an enquiry. The learned S.D.O. recommended to cancel the leases after taking evidence, that Bikram Singh, one of the lease holders died and his son was unwilling to cultivate the land left by his father. Keeping in view this fact, the lease granted in favour of Bikram Singh for plot no. 234 of which new numbers were 166 and 172 was cancelled. The revision was preferred before the learned Additional Commissioner against that order. 3. I have the heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner has found that the proceeding in respect of cancellation of leases was not barred by Section 49 of U.P. C. H. Act. I find that in this respect the view taken by the learned Additional Commissioner is in accordance with the provision of law. In a proceeding u/s 198 (4) of the Z. A & L. R. Act no title is decided, only procedure adopted to the grant of leases is to be examined by the trial court. The learned Additional Commissioner has also found that the S. D. O. has no legal authority to make an enquiry u/s 198 (4) of the Act I of 1951. In view of this provision the learned Additional Commissioner came to this conclusion that only the Collector has authority to make an enquiry u/s 198 (4) of Act I of 1951, and by not doing so an illegality has been committed by the trial court. In view of this provision the learned Additional Commissioner came to this conclusion that only the Collector has authority to make an enquiry u/s 198 (4) of Act I of 1951, and by not doing so an illegality has been committed by the trial court. Against this the learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the person who has moved this application was not an aggrieved party and the complainant had sufficient land for his holding and that in the instant case it was the Additional Collector who passed the order dated 12-2-80 which was correct and the finding of the learned Additional Commissioner suffers from an illegality that the matter was decided by the S.D.O. The learned counsel for the state submits that no illegality has been committed by the learned Additional Collector. 5. I find that in the instant case the decision taken by the learned Additional Collector was based on the report of the S. D. O. dated 14-2-79. The provision contained in Section 198 (4) of the Z. A. & L. R. Act authorises only the Collector to make an enquiry in respect of a complaint against the grant of lease executed by the Land Management Committee. The provision of Section 198 (4) of the Act I of 1951 is quoted below :- "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 - (i) in the case of an allotment of land made before the commencement of the U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 cancel the allotment and the lease if any, within five, years from the date of such commencement; and (ii) in the case of an allotment of a land made on or after the date of such commencement cancel the allotment and the lease if any, within five years from the date of such allotment or lease." From the reading of this section it is abundantly clear that the Collector not the Sub Divisional Officer who has made this enquiry is authorised to make an enquiry. In this regard the manner prescribed u/r. 178-A of the Z. A. & L. R. Rules for making an enquiry has not been followed. In this regard the manner prescribed u/r. 178-A of the Z. A. & L. R. Rules for making an enquiry has not been followed. In the instant case the decision taken by the learned Additional Collector was on the evidence taken by the S.D.O. and he has passed the order after hearing the parties; but he has made no enquiry. 6. In view of the above I find that the order passed by the learned Additional Collector on 12-2-80 was not in accordance with the provision of law, and is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the revision succeeds and the order dated 12-2-80 passed by the trial court is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the trial court to decide it in the light of the observations made above.