JUDGMENT Nathoo Lal, Member - This is a reference under Section 333-A of the UP ZA and LR Act made by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra in revision No. 61 of 1986 preferred against the order dated 6-21986 passed by the Additional Collector Mainpuri in a case no. 124/84-85 Prabhu Dayal v. Tofan Singh, under Section 198 (4) of the UP ZA and LR Act. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that on the complaint made to the Collector by one Prabhu Dayal seeking cancellation of allotment of Gaon Samaj land made in favour of the revisionist, Tofan Singh in respect of plot no 2865 (10 decimals) situated in village Bhadana Pargana Mustafabad district Mainpuri, proceedings under Section 198 (4) were initiated. After necessary enquiry the Additional Collector Mainpuri passed the impugned order dated 6-2-1986 cancelling the allotment made in favour of the revisionist and reverted the land to the Gaon Sabha. Feeling aggrieved Sri Tofan Singh allottee came to the court of Additional Commissioner in the present revision. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 4. From the perusal and the observations made by the learned Additional Commissioner for taking grounds in favour of recommendations made, it is clear that the learned Additional Commissioner has recommended in favour of accepting the reference by setting aside the impugned order of the trial court only on the ground that the proceedings have been taken up by the Additional Collector Mainpuri on the application of complainant Prabhu Dayal made on 23-3-1983 while the alleged allotment had been made in 1978-79 and since under rules the proceedings could be taken up on the complaints of private persons only within a period prescribed under rules which is two years, the learned Additional Commissioner held that the application is time barred and no proceedings could be taken up against the revisionist. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist also argued on the same footing and has pressed that the limitation prescribed was six months at that time for the cancellation of allotment on the applications made by private persons and the application in the present case was clearly time barred. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist also argued on the same footing and has pressed that the limitation prescribed was six months at that time for the cancellation of allotment on the applications made by private persons and the application in the present case was clearly time barred. The learned counsel has also contended that the complainant had taken one more ground of his illegal occupation of the land in dispute but unauthorised possessions by trespasseers cannot be considered to be included in the possession rendering the land not vacant and occupation by trespassers is not authorised possession and the land in question is to be held to have been vacant for the purposes of allotment. The other point on which the learned counsel for the revisionist has laid stress is with regard to the fact that the learned Additional Collector has included the land in the name of the father of the revisionist while calculating the land of the revisionist which is not the correct view. 6. The learned D.G.C. (R) on the other hand has argued only that since no suo moto action in the matter has been taken, the question of limitation is worth consideration and cannot be overlooked. 7. I do not find sufficient reasons to agree with the contentions made either by the learned counsel for the revisionist or the contentions made by the learned D.C.C. (R). So far as the point relating to calculating the minimum prescribed land with the revisionist and including the land of his father is concerned, neither this point has been touched by the learned Additional Commissioner in the reference made nor appears to be having any force from the perusal of the record. The learned Additional Collector in the impugned order has no where mentioned that the land in the name of the father of the revisionist is also to be included while calculating the minimum prescribed quantity of land required by the allottee to become eligible being landless agricultural labourer for the Gaon Samaj land. The learned Additional Collector has clearly observed that the allottee has got more than 3? acres of land from before the alleged allotment and is a big cultivator having tractor etc. The learned Additional Collector has clearly observed that the allottee has got more than 3? acres of land from before the alleged allotment and is a big cultivator having tractor etc. I do agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the revisionist that unauthorised possession of a trespasser cannot be considered to be sufficient to render the land in question nut vacant. So far as the point referred by the learned Additional Commissioner about the limitation is concerned, there is no question of disagreeing with the contentions of the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as the contentions made by the D.G.C. (R) only to the extent that the limitation is prescribed only for action on private complaints and this limitation is not applicable for suo moto action. From the perusal of record it is evidently clear that D.G.C. (R) Sri Tejpal Singh Yadav of Mainpuri himself moved an application in the court of the Additional Collector Mainpuri during the present proceedings for taking suo moto action in the matter and the learned Additional Collector in the impugned order himself observed while discussing the point of limitation that his proceedings in the matter are made to be by suo moto action and accordingly the proceedings were legalised throwing out the question of limitation. Thus to my mind the learned Additional Collector was perfectly justified in taking suo moto action in the matter and I do not find any irregularity or illegality in exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Additional Collector in disposing off the present proceedings and accordingly this reference cannot be accepted. 8. In view of the observations made above the revision is dismissed and the land is reverted back to the Gaon Sabha and any other person including the complainant if in the unauthorised possession shall stand ejected.