JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This revision has been filed against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, dated September 11, 1985. 2. The facts of the case are that the learned Additional Collector, Aligarh, vide his order dated April 17, 1983 ordered for an enquiry regarding a lease granted in favour of the revisionist in respect of which an earlier proceeding under Section 198(4) was dropped. The learned Additional Collector says that there is no legal obstacle in proceedings with an enquiry by the Sub-Divisional Officer. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that Yad Ram, Opposite party has filed an application with an affidavit that he was not inclined to proceed with the case against the revisionist, that the lease was granted in the year 1970 and the present application was not within time, that the enquiry was being conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer who was not at all competent to conduct an enquiry, and that there was no illegality committed in the grant of the lease and on the basis the learned Additional Collector had dropped the earlier proceedings against the revisionist on December 27, 1982. 5. The learned District Government Counsel (Revenue) submits that the earlier proceedings were initiated on the application of a different person named Mool Chand, whereas the instant enquiry was ordered by the Collector on an application moved by Yad Ram. To this, the learned counsel for the revisionist replies that no legal purpose would be served by making an enquiry by the Divisional Officer as in respect of the same lease proceedings taken earlier under Section 198(4) dropped by the learned Additional Collector. 6. Section 198(4) of U.P. Act I of 1951 was amended by U.P. Act 20 of 1982. By this amendment the period of limitation for proceeding under Section 198(4) in respect of a lease granted prior to November 10, 1980 was extended upto a period of two years from that date, and in the case of an allotment of land made on or after the said date, i.e., the November 10, 1980, the period of expiry of limitation for such proceeding was after five years. The relevant provisions of sub-section(6) of Section 198 read 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." 7. Under the provisions of Section 198(4), the Collector has to proceed with an enquiry into legality or otherwise of an allotment made by the Land Management Committee if there is an application moved against the allotment. Form the provisions contained in sub-section (6) of Section 198, it is evident that a show cause notice could be issued before expiry of a period of two years from November 10, 1980. The learned counsel for the revisionist says that learned counsel for the revisionist says that the learned Additional Collector has embarked upon an application moved by Yad Ram on January 5, 1983 but in view of provisions contained in sub-section (6) of Section 198 the learned Additional Collector was not at all authorised to proceed with the enquiry in respect of the application of Yad Ram dated January 5, 1983. 8. I find that it is a fact that application against legality of lease was moved on January 5, 1983 by Yad Ram. On the basis of that application the Collector or the Additional Collector had no authority to proceed for an enquiry in respect of legality or otherwise of the allotment. The order of the learned Additional Collector for getting an enquiry made from the Sub-Divisional Officer is not illegal but is not warranted by law. On the basis of an enquiry of the Sub-Divisional Officer the learned Additional Collector could issue a show cause notice but he cannot make an order on that basis. So far as the order regarding enquiry to be made by the Sub-Divisional Officer is concerned, I find, there is no illegality committed by the learned Additional Collector. On the basis of an enquiry of the Sub-Divisional Officer the learned Additional Collector could issue a show cause notice but he cannot make an order on that basis. So far as the order regarding enquiry to be made by the Sub-Divisional Officer is concerned, I find, there is no illegality committed by the learned Additional Collector. But since the learned Additional Collector ceased to have any authority to proceed with an enquiry in respect of an application moved after the period of limitation prescribed under sub-section (6) of Section 198, the action taken by the learned Additional Collector is not at all legal. 9. Consequently, this revision is allowed and the orders of the courts below are hereby quashed.