JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member. - This is a revision against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, dated 13.1.1985 whereby the revision filed against the order of the Additional Collector, Firozabad, dated 22.8.1985 was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that a patta for abadi site was granted by the L.M.C. to the revisionist in the year 1969. 3. Opposite parties Phoolan Singh and others submitted and application to the Collector under Rule 115-P of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules on 11.12.1984 for the cancellation of the said patta on the ground of various irregularities. 4. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the revisionist pattedar that the application was highly time barred and was not maintainable. 5. The Additional Collector by his order dated 22.8.1985 rejected this objection against which a revision was preferred before the Commissioner which was also dismissed, hence this revision. 6. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 7. Learned Counsel for the revisionist argued that originally a proceeding for the cancellation of a patta for abadi site was instituted under Rule 115-N of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules which was brought on the Statute Book by notification number 1715/1A-1042-55 March 20, 1957 and this provision continued till it was substituted by another Notification No. 226/Rajaswa 1-1-2(1)-71, dated March 16/17, 1972 read with Corrigendum No. 56 Rajaswa 1-2(1)-72, dated July 31, 1972; and again substituted by Notification No. 182-12-1-73 (4), Rajaswa-1, date December 17, 1973 and by these notification the provision for cancellation of patta was brought in Rule 115-P instead of Rule 115-N. It was argued that till the introduction new of Rule 115-P the period of limitation for cancellation of the pattas on the application of an interested person was only three months from the date of the auction and this limitation was expunged altogether only from 1972 when Rule 115-P was introduced, hence the present allotment having been made in 1969 could be got cancelled only within a period of three months from the date of the auction and, therefore, the application submitted in 1984 was highly time barred and was liable to be rejected on this ground. 8. In my opinion this aforesaid argument is not without force. 8. In my opinion this aforesaid argument is not without force. I have careful perused the old Rule 115-P. It is crystal clear that though no limitation has been prescribed in new Rule 115-P it definitely existed in the old Rule 115-N and the limitation for getting the patta cancelled in respect of the pattas executed till 1972 rather till the introduction of Rule 115-P was only three months, hence nay application given after the expiry of three months from the date of the auction was time barred and could not be entertained. The present application is also, therefore, Obviously time-barred and was not entertainable. The trial Court, it seems, ignored the provisions of old Rule 115-N and that is why it summarily rejected the objection raised on behalf of the revisionist-pattedars, hence it committed illegality in rejecting such objection. The learned Additional Commissioner also failed to examine the correct law on the subject. His order also, therefore suffers from the same infirmity. In such circumstances the orders passed by both the courts below cannot be maintained fad deserves to be quashed. 9. In the result this revision is allowed. The impugned orders passed by both the courts below are set aside and the application of opposite-party Phoolan Singh made under Rule 115-P of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules is hereby rejected being not maintainable.