JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This revision has been filed against the order dated 7-11-84 passed by Sri Awadh Sharan, Additional Commissioner, Jhansi in Revision No. 284/83. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on the report of Tahsil proceedings for cancellation of lease under Section 198 (4) were initiated against the revisionist on the ground that lease was granted not in accordance with the provisions of law, that lease holder was not a resident of the circle and that he did not come under the category of landless agricultural labourer. Notices were issued to Land Management Committee and the lease holder, against which the lease holder filed his objection alleging that lease was granted to his father in accordance with the rules. After taking evidence of parties and hearing them, the learned Collector cancelled the lease, against which a revision was filed before the learned Additional Commissioner who has dismissed the revision. 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 in question was granted in 1367 Fasli which corresponds to the year 1960 and at that time lease could be granted to any person other than the person residing in the circle under category (d) of order of preference as laid down under Section 198 of U.P. Act I of 1951. The learned counsel further submits that the show cause notice issued in the instant case was not signed by the Collector but by Ahalmad of the Court. 5. The validity of any lease has to be looked into in reference to the provisions of law existing at the time of the grant of lease. In the instant case the lease was granted in 1960 and Section 198 (1) as it stood then, provided the following order of preference. 5. The validity of any lease has to be looked into in reference to the provisions of law existing at the time of the grant of lease. In the instant case the lease was granted in 1960 and Section 198 (1) as it stood then, provided the following order of preference. 198 (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 posses a suitable area of land ; and (d), any other person. From the above it is clear that lease could be granted under category (b) to any other person. Thus, the lease in the instant case could not be held to be invalid on account of breach of provisions of law in this regard. 6. As regards the defect in the notice, I have looked into the file of the trial court and from papers No. 6 and 7, which are show cause notices, I find that these do not bear the signatures of the Collector Lalitpur but of some 'Appeal Ahalmad'. I find that this 'appeal ahalmad' had no authority to issue show cause notice in view of 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. The learned District Government Counsel (Revenue) says that this ground was nowhere taken by the revisionist. I find that this is a legal requirement without which proceeding for cancellation of lease could not he initiated and finalised. In view of this, the revision is liable to succeed and the orders passed, by the learned Additional Collector and the learned Additional Commissioner are liable to be quashed. 7. I find that this is a legal requirement without which proceeding for cancellation of lease could not he initiated and finalised. In view of this, the revision is liable to succeed and the orders passed, by the learned Additional Collector and the learned Additional Commissioner are liable to be quashed. 7. The learned District Government Counsel (Revenue) says that since the notice issued was defective, as such the matter should be remanded to the trial court for decision after issue of a fresh notice. Against this, the learned counsel for the revisionist says that the orders passed by this court will not bar any future proceeding if the Collector so desires to take. 8. The revision is allowed and the orders passed by the courts below are hereby quashed. This order will not bar the proceeding, if any, that the Collector may find necessary to take.