JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This revision has been preferred under Section 333 of U.P. Act I of 1951, against the judgment and order dated 27-2-84 passed by Sri S. Dass, Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in revision no. 257 of 1982-83/ Lalitpur. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on the report of Tahsil, suo moto proceedings were initiated under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act I of 1951 against Swami Prasad, son of Harcharan, resident of village Barkhiriya, Tahsil Lalitpur, with the allegations that a lease was granted in his favour in respect of plot no. 5 (area 6-20 acres), that he was a resident of outside the circle and was not an eligible person. Show cause notices were issued to the lease holder and the Land Management Committee. Swami Prasad contended that I he lease was granted in accordance with the provisions of law to him. The lease was cancelled by the learned Additional Collector, Sri D. P. Singh, by order dated 10-1-83. Against that, a revision was preferred before the learned Commissioner, who dismissed the revision. Against that order of the learned Commissioner, the instant revision has been filed by Swami Prasad. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned D.G.C. (R), and have perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the lease was granted after due compliance of provisions of law, and that the lease was granted in 1961 and the proceedings initiated against the applicant were beyond time. Against this, the learned D. G.C. (R) submits that the revisionist was a resident of outside the circle and was not entitled to grant of a lease. Against this, the learned counsel for the revisionist submits that at the time the lease was granted, there was no such a condition prescribed that a person residing in the circle should only be granted a patta. He referred to Section 198 as it stood at the time of grant of patta. That section read as under :- "198.- Order of preference in admitting persons to land under Section 195 or 197. He referred to Section 198 as it stood at the time of grant of patta. That section read as under :- "198.- Order of preference in admitting persons to land under Section 195 or 197. - (1) In admitting any person as sirdar or asami under Section 195 or 197, the Land Management Committee shall, subject to the rules framed or order made by the court under Section 178, observe the following order of preference - (a) a landless agricultural labourer or an asami residing in the circle who does not hold any land whether as bhumidhar, sirdar or adhivasi; (b) a bhumidhar, sirdar or adhivasi who is holding land less than 6 acres in area in the circle ; (c) a co-operative farm established under this Act holding land within the jurisdiction of the Land Management Committee to enable it to possess a suitable area of land ; and (d) any other person." From category (d) above, it is evident that any other person could be granted a lease at that time. As such the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial court in this respect are not sustainable. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist has drawn my attention to the show-cause notice. The show-cause notice in the instant case was issued by the 'ahalmad' of the court of Sub-Divisional Officer Talbehat for appearance of the opposite party on 26-4-79. Provisions contained in Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act I of 1951 provide that the inquiry into an allotment of land made by the Land Management Committee is to be made by the Collector. "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." From this it is evident that the instant proceedings were done by a person who had no authority to issue a show-cause notice. On account of this, the entire proceedings become void ab-initio. Consequently, this revision is liable to be allowed and the orders of both the courts below are liable to be set aside. 6. On account of this, the entire proceedings become void ab-initio. Consequently, this revision is liable to be allowed and the orders of both the courts below are liable to be set aside. 6. In view of the above, the revision is allowed, the orders of the courts below are set aside, and the proceedings under Section 198 (4) are hereby quashed. However, this order will not bar any future action if it is to be taken by the Collector in accordance with the provisions of law.