JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 2-6-78 passed by Sri R.R. Singh, Additional Commissioner Lucknow Division, in Revision no. 189 of 1976-77. 2. The facts in brief, are that suo moto proceedings under Section 198 (3) of U.P. Act I of 1951 were initiated against the revisionist Hari Prasad on the allegation that a lease was granted to him on 23-10-66 against the provisions of law. On 13-11-73 Hari Prasad filed an objection alleging that the lease was granted to him in accordance with the provisions of law and that the proceedings were time-barred. The lease was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 1-8-77. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned DGC (R), and have perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the order passed by the trial court was without jurisdiction and the proceedings were time barred. Relying on 1982 U.P. Revenue Judgments, p. 150, he submits that by U.P. Act No. 4 of 1969 the power in respect of cancellation of lease was taken away from the S.D.O. and was vested with the Collector, and it was the Collector alone who had jurisdiction to deal with the matter of cancellation of lease and therefore on 13-7-72 the S.D.O. had no jurisdiction nor had he any power to cancel the lease on 30-6-75. He has also drawn my attention to 1982 AWC (HC) p. 836 in which the Hon'ble Judge of the Lucknow Bench of the High Court has held that U.P. Act No. 35 of 1970 was published in the U.P. Gazette, Extra-ordinary, dated 29th December, 1970. So on 30th November 1971 when the application was moved by the Opposite Party no. 4 as also on 23rd October, 1973 when the Sub-Divisional Officer passed the order, the Collector alone had the jurisdiction to cancel the allotment and the lease. The Sub-Divisional Officer had no such jurisdiction. 5. Against this, the learned DGC (R) submits that the proceedings were initiated on the intimation of the Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Ganeshpur Rahamanpur on 16-10-73. I find that on that date the learned Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter of cancellation of lease and he had no authority under the law to issue a show cause notice under the provisions of Section 198. I find that on that date the learned Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter of cancellation of lease and he had no authority under the law to issue a show cause notice under the provisions of Section 198. Section 198 (3) as it stood at the relevant time read as under :- "198 (3). The Collector may on his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment of land, enquire in the manner prescribed into such allotment and if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular, he may- (i) cancel the allotment and the lease, if any, and thereupon the right, title and interest of the allottee or lessee or any person claiming through him in the land allotted or lease shall cease and such land shall revert to the Gaon Sabha, and (ii) direct delivery of possession of such land forth with to the Gaon Sabha after ejectment of every person holding or retaining possession thereof, and may for that purpose use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary." 6. From this it is evident that it was the Collector who had jurisdiction to deal with the matter and not the Sub-Divisional Officer. In the instant case suo moto action was taken in the year 1973 and the orders were passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer on 1-8-77, when he had no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. Consequently, this revision is allowed and the orders by both the courts below are set aside.