JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This revision has been filed against the order and judgment of Sri Girish Chandra, Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, dated May 16, 1977 in revision No. 195 of 1976. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that proceedings for cancellation of allotment were initiated under Rule 115-N, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules against the revisionist on the complaint of Land Management Committee on January 3, 1975. Notice were issued to Mam Chand, Tara Chand, Mukhtara Babu, Chajju and Zila Singh. Proceedings were transferred to Collector. After taking evidence of the parties, the leases were cancelled by the Additional Collector by order dated April 6, 1976. A revision was preferred before the learned Additional Commissioner, who also dismissed the revision. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned D.G.C.(R), and have perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the land was allotted on May 26, 1971 and application for cancellation of allotment was made on January 3, 1975 which was time barred, that the application was moved after four years, that records of allotments were not summoned and that the learned Additional Commissioner did not give reasons for his decision. 5. Under Rule 115-N, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules, it was provided that the Assistant Collector incharge of the sub-division shall, on the application of any person interested, filed within three months of the date of auction and may, at any time of his own motion, cancel for reasons to be recorded in writing the allotment order of one or more of the grounds enumerated in the said rule. Rule 115-N, as it stood at the relevant time of allotment, read as follows:- "115-N. (1) The Assistant Collector incharge of the sub-division shall, on the application of any person interested, filed within three months of the date of auction, and may, at any time on his own motion, cancel for reasons to be recorded in written, the allotment order on one or more of the following grounds: (i) The bid accepted was inadequate; (ii) The auction was collusive or unfair; (iii) The auction proceedings which were not followed in accordance with the rules; (iv) Any other ground. (2) No order under sub-rule (1) shall be passed unless the allottee has been given an opportunity to show cause against the proposed action. (2) No order under sub-rule (1) shall be passed unless the allottee has been given an opportunity to show cause against the proposed action. (3) The decision of the Assistant Collector incharge of the sub-division shall be final." 6. Subsequently, the powers of enquiry were vested with the Collector and, consequently, those proceeding were transferred by the Sub-Divisional Officer to the Court of Collector. I find that there has been no illegality in doing so. The Collector has taken suo moto proceedings and no period of limitation was provided, and I am of the view that the proceedings taken were in time. 7. The learned Additional Commissioner was of the view that persons who were allotted the land were no landless agricultural labourer, and I find that this finding of the learned trial court suffers from no illegality. Hench, the orders passed by the learned Additional collector and the learned Additional Commissioner were justified. I do not find any ground for interference with the orders passed by the court below. 8. Consequently, this revision fails and is hereby dismissed.