JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, M. - This is a reference made by Addl. Commissioner. Agra Division, Agra dated 9.9.1988 whereby he was recommended that the order of the Addl. Collector (Admn.) Agra dated 17.2.1988 be set aside and the patta for abadi site in favour of O.P. No. 1 be cancelled. 2. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that revisionist Sukhi applied to the Collector on 11.11.1987 that the disputed land has been in his possession from the time of his ancestors yet the Pradhan executed a patta for abadi of the said land in favour of his own son, opp. party No. 1 Vinod Kumar without observing all formalities. 3. The Additional Collector obtained a report from Tahsildar and rejected the application of Sukhi because permission from the Collector had already been obtained for granting patta. 4. On observation the learned Addl. Commissioner came to the finding that proper procedure had not been followed for granting the patta, hence the order of the Collector should be set aside and the patta be cancelled. 5. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the opp. party argued that there is no illegality in the order of the Addl. Collector in rejecting the application of the revisionist because it was bad not only on merits but was also barred by limitation. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that it was the duty of the pattedar to have proved that the proper procedure had been observed and it had at been done so the Addl. Collector could not have refused to cancel the patta and he should have drawn sou-motu, action. 8. First of all it has to be determined whether the application of Sui hi was time barred or not. Patta in this case was granted under Rule 115-N and the procedure for the cancellation of such patta is given in Rule 115-P which provides that the Collector made on his own motion on the application of any person aggrieved may proceed to make inquiry in the manner and may cancel the allotment if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular. Now surprisingly no limitation has been prescribed in this rule though the provisions of Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 do contain the period of limitation under which an application for cancellation of patta can be made or sou-motu action can be taken. According to the Limitation Act when no limitation has been prescribed in any matter then the residuary provisions of Article 137 of Indian Limitation Act has to apply in such cases. The limitation in that case is only three years. Consequently in all cases under Rule 115-P where a cancellation of any lease granted under Rule 115-L or M is sought under Rule 115-P the Limitation is only three years and not more . 9. In the instant case the patta was granted in 1980 whereas the application for cancellation of patta was made on 11.11.1987 i.e. after more than 7 years of the execution of the patta. Such application was, therefore, clearly barred by Limitation and was against law prescribed in Article 137 of Indian Limitation Act. Such application was, therefore, liable to be rejected on this ground alone and no further inquiry by the Collector was at all necessary. The Collector even then made an inquiry by obtaining a report from the Tahsil and rejected the application. The order of the Addl. Collector is, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality and deserves to be maintained. The application of Sukhi was rightly rejected. It appears that the learned Addl. Commissioner failed to examine the question of limitation and that is why he made this reference under some wrong impression. His recommendation is, therefore, liable to be rejected and the revision deserves to be dismissed. 10. In the result the reference is rejected and revision is dismissed. The impugned order passed by the Addl. Collector is maintained.