JUDGMENT P. Singh, J. - This reference has been made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, vide his order dated 19-8-85 for setting aside the trial court's order dated 25-9-84. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the instant proceedings under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act I of 1951 were initiated on the report of Tahsildar Mau dated 1-5-84. The Tahsildar reported that Smt. Rani Bai, wife of Bhaiyalal and Smt. Sahidunnisa, wife of Abdul Hasan, residents of village Kattaiyakhater were allotted plots no. 136, area 0-8-0, 323, area 2-0-0, 450, area 2-0-6, 451, area 2-0-8, 457, area 3-17 and 474, area 13-11-0, totalling an area of 14-5-0, that in allotting this land the land management committee had not observed the procedure prescribed, that the lease holders were not eligible to get leases of Gaon Sabha land, that at the time of allotment the list of eligible persons was not verified and no agenda was circulated and the husbands of the lease holders were pradhan of the village. Objections were filed by the lease holders in which they alleged that they were residing separately from their husbands, that the leases were granted after the approval of the sub-Divisional officer, Karvi, and that procedure was observed in accordance with the provisions of law, that the present Pradhan of the village had enemity with their husbands, and that the report of the Tahsildar was beyond the period of limitation. The trial court found that procedure for allotment was illegal and that the lease holders were not eligible to get leases, and consequently the trial court cancelled the leases. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionists and perused the record. None has appeared for the opposite party to contest the reference. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner has observed that the leases were granted in the year 1374 Fasli corresponding to 1967 A.D., that the period for proceedings for cancellation of leases expired on 10-11-82 and the instant proceedings were against the provisions of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 198 and that there was no provision that the period of limitation prescribed in sub-section (7) was not in respect of suo moto proceedings. 5. I find that the view taken by the learned Additional Commissioner is in accordance with the provisions of law. 5. I find that the view taken by the learned Additional Commissioner is in accordance with the provisions of law. Sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 198 of U.P. Act I of 1951 read as under :- "198 (5)-No order for cancellation of an Allotment or lease shall be made under sub-section (4) unless a notice to show cause is served on the person in whose favour the allotment or lease was made or on his legal representatives : Provided that no such notice shall be necessary in proceedings for the cancellation of any allotment or lease where such proceedings were pending before the Collector or any other court or authority on August 18, 1980. (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 made on or after the said date, before the expiry of a period of five years from the date of such allotment or lease." 6. Obviously, the instant leases were granted before November 10, 1980, and in view of the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 198 evidently the period for issuing any show cause notice expired on 10-11-1982. The provisions of subsection (5) of Section 198 are mandatory. In view of this provision, no proceedings could be initiated against these lease holders after 10-11-82. Consequently, this revision succeeds. The order passed by the trial court dated 25-9-84 is set aside and the leases granted to the revisionists are hereby maintained.