JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This revision has been filed against the order dated August 14, 1985 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jhansi, in Revision No. 27/33 of 1984-85 against the order dated February 4, 1984 passed by the learned Collector, Lalitpur, in a proceeding under Section 198(4) of U.P. Act I of 1951. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on the report of Tahsil proceedings under Section 198(4) were taken suo moto for cancelled of lease granted in favour of revisionist on the ground that the lease holder already held sufficient land and adding it to land under the lease it exceeded the permissible limit. By order dated February 4, 1984 the learned Collector cancelled the lease. Against that order, a revision was filed before the learned Additional Commissioner who also dismissed the revision. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the lease could be maintained for an area which came under the permissible limit and that, in any case the show cause notice issued in the instant case was illegal inasmuch as it was not signed by the Collector but by Peshkar/A.R.A. 5. I have looked into the file of the trial court and from paper No. 13 which is the show cause notice, I find that it does not bear the signature of the Collector, Lalitpur, but of some Peshkar/A.R.A. I find that this person who signed the notices had no authority to issue a show cause notice in view of the provisions contained in section 198(4) of U.P. Act I of 1951. Consequently, the proceedings taken against the lease holder were void ab-initio. In view of this, the revision is liable to succeed and the orders passed by the learned Collector and the learned Additional Commissioner are liable to be quashed. 6. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the order passed by the courts below are hereby quashed.