JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member. - These references have been made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, vide order dated 12-9-85 for setting aside the trial court's order dated 22-4-85 whereby it cancelled the leases granted in favour of the revisionists in proceedings under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act I of 1951. 2. None is present on either side. I have however perused the record. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on the report of Naib Tahsildar dated 30-10-83, against Salig, allottee, proceedings under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act I of 1951 were initiated. It was alleged in that report that a lease was granted in favour of Salig against the provisions of law and the lease should be cancelled. Similar report was submitted by the Supervisor Kanungo on 14-12-83 in which it was suggested that suo motu proceedings for cancellation of lease under Section 198 (4) be initiated against Salig. This report was forwarded by the Tahsildar to the Collector, on 15-12-83. The learned Additional Collector by order dated 28-1-84, initiated suo motu proceedings and issued show cause notices to the allottees fixing 10-2-84 for replies. Salig Ram allottee filed his objection on 18-5-84 in which he alleged that the lease was granted to him in a regular way and that the land was not of a public utility. There was also an application moved by one Badsbah under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act 1 of 1951 against the grant of leases in favour of Harpal and Salig. This application was moved before the Additional Collector on 20-11-82 in which it was alleged that leases granted to Harpal and Salig were illegal and should be cancelled. On 22-4-1983, the learned Additional Collector, Shri Hari Shanker Paudey, cancelled the leases. Against this order, three revisions were filed before the learned Additional Commissioner, which were numbered as 131, 132 and 133 of 1984-85. All these three revisions were decided by the learned Additional Commissioner vide his order dated 12-9-85. The learned Additional Commissioner was of the view that the proceedings taken against the allottees were beyond time in view of provisions contained in Section 198 (6) of the U: P. Act I of 1951, and consequently he has recommended that the revisions should be allowed. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner was of the view that the proceedings taken against the allottees were beyond time in view of provisions contained in Section 198 (6) of the U: P. Act I of 1951, and consequently he has recommended that the revisions should be allowed. 4. Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act I of 1951 provides for enquiry into allotments made by the Land Management Committee. That section 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 the lease, if any." 5. Sub-section (6) of Section 198 provides for the period of limitation for proceedings pertaining to cancellation of leases granted during different periods. That sub-section reads as under :- "198 (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." From the above, it is evident that the leases granted prior to November 10 1980 could be examined by issuing a show-cause notice within two years reckoned with from November 10, 1980, i.e., till November 10, 1982. 6. In the instant case the leases in question were granted on 26-6-80 and therefore, in view of the provisions contained in clause (a) of sub-section (6) of Section 198, the show-cause notices could be issued only till 10-11-82. In the instant case, the show cause notices were issued on 28-1-84 which were highly time-barred. Consequently, the proceedings taken by the learned Additional Collector are liable to be quashed. 7. Accordingly, these revisions are allowed, the orders of the trial court dated 22-4-16 are set aside, and the proceedings under Section 198 (4) initiated against the revisionists are hereby quashed. 8. This order shall govern References nos. 139 to 141 of 1985-86/District, Etah.