JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member. - This is a revision against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad, Division, Faizabad, dated 7.7.1978 through which the revision filed against the Order of S.D.O., Madipur, district Sultanpur, dated 22.6.1970 was dismissed. 2. A Patta of the disputed land was executed in favour of the revisionist by the L.M.C. in the year, 1967. A report was made by the Naib-Tahsildar for the cancellation of that patta on the ground that pattedar was not landless agricultural labourer and that he is nephew of Pradhan. On this report the S.D.O. cancelled the patta by his order dated 21.6.1970. 3. The revisionist went up in revision before the Additional Commissioner on 15.11.1985 with the explanation that he came to know of the order of the S.D.O. only in July 1985. The learned Additional Commissioner rejected the revision on the ground of limitation. He held that the revision was barred by limitation and the revisionist had not given any satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay. Feeling aggrieved this revision has been filed before this court. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 5. It appears from the record of the trial Court that the patta of the revisionist was cancelled without issuing any notice to him. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has drawn my attention to U.P. Amendment Act No. 17 of 1968 whereby an amendment was made in Section 198(2) of U.P. Act. No. 1 of 1951 and the word Collector was substituted for Assistant Collector in that Section, as a result of which the power of the S.D.O. were withdrawn and only Collector were authorised to cancel the patta under Section 198 of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The instant impugned order passed by the S.D.O. is dated 22.6.1970 when he had not been left with any powers under Section 198(2) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 and, therefore, the orders passed by him were beyond jurisdiction and illegal and could not be maintained. The learned Additional Commissioner should have examined this point and should not have rejected the revision merely on account of limitation. 6. Consequently this revision is allowed. The learned Additional Commissioner should have examined this point and should not have rejected the revision merely on account of limitation. 6. Consequently this revision is allowed. The impugned orders passed by both the courts below are set aside and the case is remanded back to the Collector to re decide the case according to law after impleading L.M.C as a party and issuing fresh notice to the revisionist.