JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This reference arises out of a case under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act 1 of 1951. The learned Additional Commissioner is of the view that since resolution by LMC regarding lease was dated 20-6-70 and SDO's approval was given on 31-8-70, while show-cause notice was issued on 1-8-84, the proceedings were time barred. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 3. The view of the learned Additional Commissioner is indeed in consonance with the 'imitation provided by sub-section (6) for action under subsection (4) of Section 198, as amended by U.P. Act no. 20 of 1982, which ran as under : "(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." 4. Now, this limitation has been extended by U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1986 (U.P. Act no 24 of 1986), by clause 11 as under : "11. Amendment of Section 198. In Section 198 of the principal Act, in sub-section (6) - (i) in clause (a), for the words "two years", the words "seven years" shall be substituted and be deemed always to have been substituted ; (ii) in clause (b), for the words "five years from the date of such allotment or lease", the words "five years from the date of such allotment or lease or upto November 10-1987, whichever be later," shall be substituted and be deemed always to have been substituted. 5. Thus, in view of this subsequent amendment by U.P. Act No. 24 of 1986 whereby limitation regarding issuance of show cause notice has been extended upto November 10-1987, the present proceedings could not be said to be time-barred. The recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner cannot as such be accepted. 6. In the instant case the trial court has not passed any final orders. The recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner cannot as such be accepted. 6. In the instant case the trial court has not passed any final orders. It appears that the revisionist had raised a plea regarding proceedings being time barred, and the trial court passed an order on 28-7-86 that since evidence was in process, it would discuss that issue at the time of final decision in the case. Since it has been held that the present proceedings were not time-barred, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the revisionist by the order of the trial court and the trial court shall proceed to decide the matter on merits. The revision is accordingly dismissed.