JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, Member - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 6.3.1984 passed by Sri S. Dass, Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi in revision No. 266 of 1982-83, dismissing the revision of the revisionist arising out of the order dated 3.12.1982 passed by Sri Noor Mohammad, Collector, Lalitpur in a case u/s 198 (4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 2. The facts of the case are that the Collector Lalitpur initiated proceedings u/s 198 (4) of the Act on the Tehsil report and issued show cause notice to Komil s/o Gorey Lal and Daulat s/o Ramal requiring him to show cause as to why the allotment of plot land in dispute should not be cancelled on the following grounds: (i) the allottee did not come within the category of landless agricultural labourer; (ii) the allotment was not made according to rules; and (iii) the allottee held 21 acres land before the allotment. In response to the notice, Komil and Daulat filed objection denying the allegations and contending that the allotment was made in favour of Nannai who was landless agricultural labourer, after observing all necessary formalities. Nannai was close relative of the objectors. When he died issueless, the objectors stepped into his shoes and inherited the property by way of succession. The learned collector Lalitpur cancelled the allotment on the ground that the allottee Nannai was not resident of the village Satgata where the land in dispute was situated and that he was resident of the village Todi. It also appears from the judgment of the learned Collector that the objector Daulat held 20.90 acres land and Komil held 11.88 acres. The learned Collector has also held that this benami allotment was made in favour of Nannai by the Chairman LMC with an intent to benefit the objectors Daulat and Komil. Daulat and Komil filed a revision before the Divisional Commissioner. Finding no force in the revision, he dismissed it on 6.3.84. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned D.G.C. (R). Sri K.N. Saxena, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that no notice could be given to Komil and Daulat who were not the allottees and that the allotment made in favour of their maternal uncle Nannai could not be cancelled because they had inherited the property on the demise of Nannai. Sri K.N. Saxena, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that no notice could be given to Komil and Daulat who were not the allottees and that the allotment made in favour of their maternal uncle Nannai could not be cancelled because they had inherited the property on the demise of Nannai. His second submission is that the plea of benami could not be raised. His last submission is that in 1958 the allotment could be made in favour of any other person. The learned D.G.C. (R) has contended that no interference is called for in the orders of the courts below. 4. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced before me and have also perused the record. It has come on the record that Nannai was not the resident of the village Satgata where the land is situated. Though there was no bar on allotment of land in favour of any other person in 1958, the allotment was deceptively made in collusion with the Chairman L.M.C. just to benefit the revisionists. The Collector has, therefore, rightly cancelled the allotment. The question is whether the allotment of land inherited by the heirs of the allottee could be subject to cancellation. Where the allotment is illegal ab initio, the allotment of land inherited by the successors can be cancelled. 5. In the result, I find no force in this revision petition which is dismissed.