JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This reference has been made by the Commissioner, Bareilly division, Bareilly vide his recommendation dated 14-8-1991 under Section 333-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 in a proceeding under Section 198 (4) of the Act. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that the revisionist was allotted land by Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti. The allotment was challenged. The Proceeding was initated against the revisionist in the court of Additional Collector, Shahjanpur. However the revisionist contested the proceeding and his lease was cancelled and he filed revision before the commissioner who has recommended that no show-cause notice has been issued under Section 198 (5) of the Act, therefore whole proceeding has become materially illegal and reference should be allowed and the order of the trial court should be set aside and the case be remanded to the trial court to issue show-cause notice under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 then to take evidence afresh and to decide the case. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties Perused the record. 4. In view of the law laid down by a Full Bench of Hon'ble Board of Revenue in which I was also a Member it is mandatory to issue show-cause notice under Section 198 (5) of the Act before the cancellation of the lease. No show-cause notice has been issued to the allottee under Section 198 (5) of the Act, therefore, the order of the Collector is illegal and he has not exercised the jurisdiction properly vested in him 5. The reference is accepted and the order of the trial court dated 22-11-1990 is set aside and he is directed to decide the case after issue of notice under Section 198 (5) of the Act afresh and taking evidence of the parties.