JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a revision against the order of the Additional Commissioner; Meerut Division, Meerut dated 28-4-1982 through which the revision filed against the order of the Additional Collector Bulandshahar dated 30-9-1981 in a case u/s 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was dismissed. 2. The proceeding for the cancellation of the patta of the revision were initiated on the application of opposite party Raghuraj Singh. The learned Additional Collector finding the patta irregular cancelled it. "The revision filed against that order was also dismissed, hence this revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that originally the L.M.C. had not been made a party in the complaint by Raghuraj Singh but by a subsequent amendment L.M.C. was impleaded but no notice was issued to it even after amendment. It was argued that the proceedings conducted by the trial court are bad in law deserve to be quashed. 5. My attention was drawn to rule 178 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules by the learned counsel for the revisionist and it was argued that this rule is mandatory and a notice to the L.M.C. as well as the pattedar is bound to be issued before the Collector can proceed with the proceedings for cancellation of the patta. 6. I find force in his argument. The file shows that even after the amendment of the complaint about the impleadment of the L.M.C. notice was again issued only to the Pradhan and not to the Chairman of the L.M.C. such notice to the Pradhan was not the compliance of rule 178-A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, hence the proceedings before the trial court were illegal and deserved to be quashed. 7. In such circumstances the orders passed by both the courts below are set aside and the revision is allowed and the case is remanded back to the Collector to decide it afresh according to law after issuing fresh notice to the L.M.C.