JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, Member. - Shiva, Ramja, Phool Chand, Banwari, Kunnu, Babu Lal, Jai Ram, Ganga Deen, Ramdhari and Bahera have filed revision No. 32 of 1985-86 against the judgment and order dated 19-11-1985 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi in revision No. 8/7/20 of 1983-84 - Shiva and others v. Ram Gopal and others, arising out of the judgment and order dated 29-7-1983 passed by the Additional Collector, Banda in case No. 559 and 694 - Ram Gopal and others v. Shiva and others, under Section 198 (4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Reference No. 49 of 1985-86 - State v. Anand Kumar, also relates to the aforesaid judgment passed by the learned trial court. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Ram Gopal and Manzoor Khan filed an application before the Collector Banda under Section 198 (4) of the Act with the contention that plot Nos. 315/1 and 315/2 had been in possession of the applicant Ram Gopal since before the abolition of Zamindari. Shisham, Jamun, Mahua, Mango and Babul trees were standing over the plots in dispute and they were never vacant. Plot No. 201 was allotted in the chak of the applicant Manzoor Khan and was not vacant. Besides these plots, other plots let out to the opposite parties were also not vacant and the allotment was not made according to rules. It was, therefore, prayed to cancel the allotment of plot Nos. 201/2, 330, 377/2, 306-kha, 386, 289-kha, 382, 212, 201/1, 367-kha, 408-ka, 201/3, 379, 201/5, 315/1, 201/7, 408/1, 20(Sic)/1, 218-kha, 201/9, 409/1, 201/10, 409/2, 135, 363-kha, 363-ka etc. made in favour of the opposite parties. 3. Summonses were issued to the opposite parties. Ram Kripal and Ram Sanehi, Chunuvad, Shiv Adhar, Kalika filed objection denying the allegations and contending that the land was allotted to the landless Harijans according to rules. The opposite party Shiv Pal, Budhua, Gafoor, Jabbar Khan Kallu, Kalua, Baura, Ram Bishal, stated in their written statements that the plot Nos. 306, 382, 289 allotted to Jabbar Khan is un-cultivable. Jabbar Khan was not landless and no allotment should have been made to him. Babu Lal, Ramdhani, Bahora, Jai Ram, Bhoori, Ganga Charan Shiv Datt and Arjun have stated through objection that the complainant applicants have no concern with plot Nos. 315/1, 315/2 and 201. 306, 382, 289 allotted to Jabbar Khan is un-cultivable. Jabbar Khan was not landless and no allotment should have been made to him. Babu Lal, Ramdhani, Bahora, Jai Ram, Bhoori, Ganga Charan Shiv Datt and Arjun have stated through objection that the complainant applicants have no concern with plot Nos. 315/1, 315/2 and 201. Their contention is that they being landless Harijans and residents of the circle were allotted land according to rules. The allottees also denied the allegations. 4. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court cancelled the allotment made in favour of Shiva, Jabbar Khan, Ramja, Ganga Din, Ramdhani, Bahora, Phool Chand, Banwari, Kunnu, Kallu, Babulal Jai Ram and Bhoori and dismissed the complaint in respect of the remaining allottee's. Aggrieved by this order, Shiva and others filed revision No. 8/7/20 of 1983-84 before the Divisional Commissioner. State has also filed a revision against the order confirming the allotment made in favour of Anand Kumar and 20 others. The learned Additional Commissioner dismissed the revision No. 8/7/20. As regards the revision No. 38/7, he made a reference recommending to set aside the order of the trial court dated 29-7-1983. 5. Since both the revision and reference are covered by one order, revision No. 32 and reference No. 49 are taken together. Sri Devendra Nath DGC (R) appeared for the state. Sri N.B. Nigam appeared for the opposite parties in revision No. 32 and Sri Awadhesh Singh appeared for the opposite parties in reference No. 49. Sri B.B. Paul appeared for the applicant Ram Gopal and Manzoor Khan. 6. Arguing on behalf of the revisionist in revision No. 32, Sri N.B. Nigam has submitted that the order of the trial court is illegal as no notice for the show cause was given to the allottees. Another contention is that an application for cancellation under Section 198 (4) can be made within six months of the allotment. The application was beyond time as it was made on 16-9-1980 whereas the allotment was made on 25-8-1979. The third submission made by the learned counsel is that under Section 198 (6) of the Act, the trial court can issue notice till 9-11-1987. Since no notice was given, the entire proceedings stand vitiated. The last submission made by him is that the grounds for cancellation are not substantiated by the evidence on record. The third submission made by the learned counsel is that under Section 198 (6) of the Act, the trial court can issue notice till 9-11-1987. Since no notice was given, the entire proceedings stand vitiated. The last submission made by him is that the grounds for cancellation are not substantiated by the evidence on record. It has been alleged that the allottee's do not reside in the circle. But the Tahsildars report shows that they had been living in the circle for the last 10 years. Similarly, the land held by the father cannot be calculated for the purpose of allotment. 7. Arguing in the reference on behalf of the opposite parties, Sri Awadhesh Singh has contended that the applicant Ram Gopal and Manzoor Khan are not aggrieved parties. Reliance has been placed on 1984 RD 408. Their complaint is, therefore, not maintainable. He has further argued that paper No. 48 and 52 prove that the proceedings were lawful and in revisional jurisdiction the findings of facts given by the trial court cannot be up set. Reliance has been placed on 1966 RD 361 and 1982 RJ 161. Another submission is that the property of the father cannot be included in the property of the son. Reliance has been placed on 1984 RD 274. Besides this, no irregularities have been pointed out by the learned Additional Commissioner. 8. Sri B.B. Paul justifying the findings of the learned Additional Commissioner, has contended that it suffers from no infirmity. 9. Sri D. Nath, DGC (R) has submitted that the learned Additional Commissioner has given cogent reasons for cancelling the lease granted in favour of 22 persons. Pointing out the irregularities in the proceedings, he has contended that there had been no signature of Ram Singh in the proceeding though he had stated to have moved the resolution. 10. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced before me and have also perused the records. The maintainability of the application moved by the applicants Ram Gopal and Manzoor Khan has been challenged as it was moved beyond time. Appendix III to the UPZA and LR Rules at serial No. 24 set out limit for raising objection to the allotment of land. The period of limitation is six months from the date of announcement of allotment by the LMC. Appendix III to the UPZA and LR Rules at serial No. 24 set out limit for raising objection to the allotment of land. The period of limitation is six months from the date of announcement of allotment by the LMC. In the instant case, the allotment was made by the LMC on 25-8-1979 Ram Gopal and Manzoor Khan moved application for the cancellation of the lease on 16-9-1980. The Collector took cognizance of the complaint and registered it on 17-9-1980. Apparently, the application was time barred. The application could be moved by 24-7-1980. The period of limitation for taking suo motu action is three years from the date when the collector first knew about the irregularities in the allotment of land. There is nothing on the record to show that the collector initiated proceedings suo motu. 11. The next question for consideration is whether any notice was given to the allottee's by the collector. Sub-section (5) of Section 198 of the Act provides that no order for cancellation of an allotment or lease shall be made under sub-section (4) unless a notice to show cause is served on the person in whose favour the allotment or lease was made or on his legal representative. Provided that no such notice shall be necessary in proceedings for the cancellation of any allotment or lease where such proceedings were pending before the collector or any other court or authority on August 18, 1980. 12. In the instant case, the proceedings became pending before the collector on 17-9-1980 necessitating the issuance of the show cause notice under sub-section (6) (a) which reads as under - "(6) Every notice to show cause mentioned in sub-section (5) may be issued - (a) in the case of an allotment of land made before November 10, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the said date), before the expiry of a period of seven years from the said date," The allotment was made on 25-8-1979. The notice could, therefore, be issued by November 9, 1987. But in the instant case, no notice at all. In place of notice was issued at all. In place of notices, summonses were issued to the allottee's. In a case where no notice, as required under Section 198 (6) of the Act is given, the entire proceedings are vitiated and any order of cancellation of allotment is against law. But in the instant case, no notice at all. In place of notice was issued at all. In place of notices, summonses were issued to the allottee's. In a case where no notice, as required under Section 198 (6) of the Act is given, the entire proceedings are vitiated and any order of cancellation of allotment is against law. There is thus no necessity to look into the merits of the case. 13. In the result, the revision succeeds on law point and is accordingly allowed. The reference made by the learned Additional Commissioner is also not accepted and the orders of the courts below dated 19-11-1985 and 29-7-1983 are set aside. Let the records be returned.