JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This revision is directed against the order dated February 10, 1987 passed by Sri N.R. Banerji, Commissioner, Bareilly Division, in Revision No. 348/102/377 of 1986. 2. It appears that proceedings under Section 198(4) of U.P. Act 1 of 1951 were taken suo moto for cancellation of leases granted on October 20, 1968 in favour of Smt. Kailash Kumari wife of Amar Bahadur Singh and Shivendra Bahadur Singh, son of Amar Bahadur Singh. It was found that Amar Bahadur Singh was at the relevant time posted as Dy. S.P., Bareilly, that allottees being members of family of a Dy. S.P. were not eligible persons for grant of leases and that Shivendra Bahadur Singh was minor at the time of grant of lease and as such he could have not been granted a lease. On these grounds the trial court cancelled the leases by order dated May 30, 1985. The present revisionists Nos. 1 and 2 are vendees from allottees. A revision was preferred against the cancellation of leases in question before the learned Commissioner who also upheld the order of the trial court and dismissed the revision, against which the present revision has been filed before this Court. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned D.G.C. (R.) appearing for the opposite parties. 4. It is no doubt that the property in respect or which allotment proceedings were taken was property of Gaon Sabha and Gaon Sabha had a right to allot the land. But the procedure prescribed under Section 195 and 198 of U.P. Act I of 1951 for admission to land is to be followed. In the instant case the leases were granted in the year 1968 and allotments were made in favour of Shivendra Bahadur Singh and Smt. Kailash Kumari, son and wife of Amar Bahadur Singh, Dy. S.P., and they sold out this land in violation of Section 131 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, which reads as under: - "131. In the instant case the leases were granted in the year 1968 and allotments were made in favour of Shivendra Bahadur Singh and Smt. Kailash Kumari, son and wife of Amar Bahadur Singh, Dy. S.P., and they sold out this land in violation of Section 131 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, which reads as under: - "131. Every person belonging to any of the following classes shall be called a Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights, shall have all the rights and be subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon such Bhumidhars by or under this Act, namely - (a) every person admitted as a Sirdar of any land under Section 195 before the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1977, or as a Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights under the said section on or after the said date; (b) every person who in any other manner acquires on or after the said date, the rights of such Bhumidhar under or in accordance with the provisions of this Act; (c) every person who is, or has been allotted any land under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952." 5. These allotments were made in accordance with the provisions of Sections 195 and 198 of U.P. Act 1 of 1951 vide resolution dated October 20, 1968. Under Section 195 the allotments were to be made with the prior approval of the Assistant Collector Incharge of the Sub-Division. This provision regarding prior approval was inserted by Section 12 of U.P. Act IV of 1969 and prior to that the same was inserted by Section 6 of President's Act XVII of 1968. At the time of allotments, Shivendra Bahadur Singh was a minor and both the allottees were not the residents of Gaon Sabha in which the land was situate. As such they were not entitled to grant of leases. In the instant case, the then Sub-Divisional Officer, Baheri, Sri A.N. Khare, did not comply with the provisions contained in sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rule 176 and instead he cursorily approved the allotments. From the evidence an record it is evident that no proclamation was made as provided in Rule 173 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules, and as such the proceedings taken were illegal. 6. From the evidence an record it is evident that no proclamation was made as provided in Rule 173 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules, and as such the proceedings taken were illegal. 6. The learned counsel for the revisionists submits that consolidation operations had taken place in the village and the land was not now the same which was given against the leases. I find that since the leases were irregular, any rights accrued through them to the allottees or the purchasers will automatically cease to exist. As such the leases would not confer any rights on them. Consequently, I uphold the orders passed by both the courts below. 7. In consequence, the leases granted in favour of Shivendra Bahadur Singh and Smt. Kailash Kumari are hereby cancelled and any rights through them to the revisionists will also be extinguished. With these observations, the instant revision is dismissed having no force.