JUDGMENT V.S. Pandey and J.N. Dwivedi, Members. - These review petitions have been filed against the judgment dated 6.12.83 passed by the then Member Sri Kaushal Kishore in reference No. 320 of 1979-80, whereby the learned Member allowed the revision filed by the State Government, set aside the judgment of the trial court dated 17.6.78, and remanded the case for proceeding afresh in accordance with law in the light of certain observations. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, and the learned D.G.C.(R.) on behalf of the State, and gone through the records. 3. It was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that a lease deed was executed in favour of Ram Hirday on 8.12.64, and his name was also recorded on its basis. An application was moved for cancelling the allotment, which was rejected. Subsequently, the present proceedings for cancellation were started on the report of the Tahsildar dated 21.4.77. The Addl. Collector dropped the proceedings on the grounds that the earlier case started for cancellation operated as res-judicata, and further proceedings could not be started. However, a revision was filed by the State Government, in which the Addl. Commissioner, Faizabad, Faizabad Division, was of the view that the earlier proceedings did not operate as res-judicate, and submitted a reference to the Board of Revenue, which has been accepted, and the case has been remanded. 4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the earlier proceedings operated as res-judicata. However, we find that the earlier proceedings were dropped on 23.9.67, because they were not maintainable as there was no notice to the Land Management Committee. It was held by the learned Member that there was no decision on merits, and so, the earlier proceedings did not operate as res-judicata. 5. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that consolidation proceedings intervened, and the identity of the plots was changed, and so, no action was possible. We do not agree. The simple fact that consolidation proceedings intervened, will not be a bar for cancellation of the lease, which was irregular. 6. It was argued that the Addl. Collector had no jurisdiction, because it was the Sub-Divisional Officer, who was competent to cancel the lease. This is not correct. We do not agree. The simple fact that consolidation proceedings intervened, will not be a bar for cancellation of the lease, which was irregular. 6. It was argued that the Addl. Collector had no jurisdiction, because it was the Sub-Divisional Officer, who was competent to cancel the lease. This is not correct. After the U.P. Ordinance XVIII of 1970 and the U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, XXXV of 1970 which came into force on 28.9.1970 and December 22, 1970 respectively, and by repealing of U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act IV of 1969, the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to cancel the lease, and only the Collector of the District had got jurisdiction cancel the patta. This view has been held in 1987 R.D. 413, 1985 R.D. 66 and 1984 R.D. 237. Actually, when the subsequent proceedings were started in the year 1977, it was the Collector who had jurisdiction to cancel the patta, and so, this argument fails. 7. The next point taken by the learned counsel for the applicant is that before exercising suo moto powers, the Collector should have passed an order that he was satisfied that suo moto action should be taken. A perusal of the trial court file shows that a report was submitted on 26.7.77, and a case was registered by the A.D.M. for cancellation of the lease. This shows that the Collector was satisfied that it was a fit case for starting cancellation proceedings, and no detailed order was required. 8. In view of the above matter, it is clear that the learned single member was fully justified in setting aside the order passed by the trial court dropping the proceedings, and in directing that further enquiry should be conducted in the matter by the Addl. Collector. The review petition have got no force, and are accordingly rejected. This order will govern review petition No. 36 and 36-A of 1983-84/Faizabad.