JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18-1-85 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, dismissing the revision no. 235/82 of 1983-84 and confirming the order of cancellation of lease passed by the Additional Collector, Lalitpur. 2. Briefly stated the fact of the case are that on the report of Tahsil, a show cause notice was allegedly issued against the lease-holder in which it was alleged that the lease-holder was residing out of circle ; that his relations were members of Land Management Committee, and that prior to the allotment the lease holder had 3-98 acres of land. After hearing the parties and evaluating the evidence on record, the lease was cancelled by the trial court. Aggrieved by that order of the trial court, revision was preferred before the learned Additional Commissioner. The learned Additional Commissioner is of the view that the lease holder was not a landless agricultural labourer, that he was residing with his father who had 9.15 acres of land and as such the lease was not regular. Consequently, he dismissed the revision on 18-1-1985. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that under Section 154 and the Explanation attached to Section 198 of U.P. Act I of 1951, a minor son is included in the family of his father and as such the applicant being major could legally take a lease in his name, that the courts below have committed an error of law in overlooking the provisions of law, and that the provisions contained in Rules 173 to 176 were fully complied with. He further says that the show-cause notice was not issued by the trial court but by the reader of the court and on account of this the entire proceedings became, void ab initio. The learned D. G. C. (R) says that the orders passed by the courts below were justified. 5. I am not at all inclined to accept this argument put forth by the learned District Government counsel (Rev). The show cause notice was issued by the reader of the Additional Collector which is highly objectionable and irregular. The learned D. G. C. (R) says that the orders passed by the courts below were justified. 5. I am not at all inclined to accept this argument put forth by the learned District Government counsel (Rev). The show cause notice was issued by the reader of the Additional Collector which is highly objectionable and irregular. Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act I of 1951 lays down that 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 under Rule 178-A of the U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Rules, and if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular, he may cancel the lease. In sub-section (5) of Section 198 of U.P. Act I of 1951 it has been provided that 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. In the instant case, on 14-7-80 it was ordered by the learned Additional Collector that notice should be issued and suo moto proceedings were started. Show cause notices were necessary to be issued to the allottee and to the Land Management Committee as well. The provisions for issuance of a show cause notice has been provided under Section 198 of U.P. Act I 1951 and the said provisions read as under :- "198 (5) No order for cancellation of an allotment or lease shall be made under sub-rule (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. (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, 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. The mode of enquiry by the Collector into allotment of land made by the Land Management Committee has been provided under rule 178-A (2) 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." 7. In the instant case, show, cause notices were issued by the reader to the Court of the learned Additional Collector, Lalitpur Sri D. P, Singh. Consequently, it cannot be held that any proceedings were pending before the Collector on 18-8-80. The trial court and the learned Additional Commissioner could not take notice of this fact, and all these proceedings have been of no use to the State. Consequently, the orders passed by the courts below are not sustainable in the eye of law and are liable to be set aside. This revision succeeds and the orders passed by both the courts below are hereby set aside. The matter is sent back to the trial court for proceeding in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 198 (of U.P. Act I of 1951) and Rule 178-A (2) of the rules framed thereunder. 8. I would like to bring this fact to the notice of the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, to issue a direction to all the Collectors and Additional Collectors in the division to proceed with inquiries under Section 198 (4) in accordance with provisions of law, and that show cause notices should invariably be issued either by the Collector or the Additional Collector before whom such proceedings are initiated.