JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This recommendation has been made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, vide his order dated 30-12-81 for setting aside the trial court's order dated 28-2-80. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that suo moto proceedings were initiated under Section 193 (2) of U.P. Act I of 1951 and show cause notices were issued to the parties concerned. On 17-7-70 the leases were cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer holding that the land was a grave-yard. The learned Additional Commissioner vide his order dated 28-1-72 set aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and remanded the matter for disposal after impleading the Land Management Committee as a party. Thereafter the trial court cancelled the leases on 19-2-73. An appeal was preferred before the learned Additional Commissioner which was allowed. Again, on 7-8-76 the leases were cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer holding that the land was a graveyard, and that the opposite parties were minors at the time of grant of the leases. By order dated 26-9-78 the Additional Commissioner set aside the order dated 7-8-76 on account of non-impleadment of Land Management Committee as a party to the proceedings. By order dated 28-2-80, the Sub-Divisional Officer cancelled the leases against which the instant revision was filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the orders passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer were without jurisdiction as on 28-.1-80 the Sub-Divisional Officer had no authority to pass an order in respect of a proceeding under section 198 (2), and that power vests with the Collector. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party says that since the lease was granted prior to 8-6-68, hence the power for cancellation was with the Sub-Divisional Officer. 6. I find that by U.P. Act No. IV of 1969 the powers for cancellation of leases were taken away from the Sub-Divisional Officers and were vested with the Collector. There was a transitory provision made in the statute that in respect of leases granted prior to 8-6-68, the Sub-Divisional Officer had power, but this provision was also deleted by U.P. Act No. XXXV of 1970 and after that the power only is with the Collector. The provisions now existing under section 198 (4) are as under :- "198 (4). There was a transitory provision made in the statute that in respect of leases granted prior to 8-6-68, the Sub-Divisional Officer had power, but this provision was also deleted by U.P. Act No. XXXV of 1970 and after that the power only is with the Collector. The provisions now existing under section 198 (4) are as under :- "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 in he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular, he may cancel the allotment and the lease, if any". From this, it is evident that it is the Collector who has power to proceed with enquiry and pass orders in respect of cancellation of lease. In the instant case, the order of cancellation was passed on 28-2-80 which is without jurisdiction and cannot be upheld by this Court. 7. Consequently, the recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner is accepted, the order passed by the trial court dated 28-2-80 is set aside and the matter is sent to the Collector, Mainpuri, for proceeding with the inquiry in accordance with the provisions contained in section 198 (4) of U.P. Act I of 1951.