JUDGMENT Honble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Sri K.S. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 5th June, 2006 passed by the Collector, Mainpuri cancelling the agricultural leases granted in favour of the petitioners and the order of the revisional Court dated 21st January, 2008 dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners. 3. Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are; an application under Section 198(4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 was filed by respondent No. 4 on 3rd/4th August, 1987 praying for cancellation of lease dated 29th January, 1982 in favour of the petitioners. The application was dismissed due to non-prosecution on 18th January, 1990. The Additional Collector subsequently on 28th August, 1997 passed an order in favour of the applicant against which revision was filed by the petitioners, which was allowed on 30th July, 2001 and the matter was remitted to the Collector for passing fresh order. The Collector on 5th June, 2006 after hearing the parties allowed the application and cancelled the leases granted to the petitioners. Prior to passing of the said order dated 5th June, 2006 an application was also filed by the petitioner dated 11th May, 2006 stating that no show cause notice has been issued in the case till 10th November, 1987, hence the application is barred by time and the application should be dismissed on the ground of delay alone. Against the order cancelling the lease, a revision was filed by the petitioners, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 21st January, 2008. 4. Sri K.S. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the petitioners, challenging the order impugned, contended that the application was barred by time, hence could not have been allowed by the Collector. Two alternative submissions have been raised by Counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention that application is barred by time, firstly that limitation for filing an application under Section 198 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 is only six months and the lease having been granted on 29th January, 1982, the application filed on 3rd/4th August, 1987 was barred by time. Secondly, it is contended that under Section 198(6) of the Act a show cause notice is required to be issued within the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 198(6) and in the present case no notice having been issued, the application ought to have been rejected. Lastly it has been contended that application having been dismissed in default on 18th January, 1990, the Collector could not have proceeded to decide the case on merits without recalling the said order. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 6. There is no dispute that lease was dated 29th January, 1982 and the application was filed on 3rd/4th August, 1987. For the submission that limitation for filing the application under Section 198 is six months, learned Counsel for the petitioners has referred to Serial Nos. 24 and 24A of Appendix-Ill of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952. From a perusal of Appendix-Ill Serial No. 24 and 24A, it is clear that so far as Serial No. 24 is concerned Section 198(2) has been deleted by U.P. Act No. XXX of 1975 and in Serial No. 24A the application contemplated is a suit to establish right claimed in the land allotted under sub-section (1) of Section 198 and the limitation begins to run from the date when the order of ejectment becomes known to the plaintiff. The present is not a case where the applicant who filed the application for cancellation of lease claimed that he is going to be ejected. In view of the above, Serial No. 24A is thus not attracted in the facts of the present case. 7. The limitation for filing the application under Section 198(4) is to be governed by Section 198(6). Sections 198(5) and 198(6) are quoted below : “198. Order of preference in admitting persons to land under Sections 195 and 197.—(1)................. (2) ................................ (3) ................................ (4) ................................ 7. The limitation for filing the application under Section 198(4) is to be governed by Section 198(6). Sections 198(5) and 198(6) are quoted below : “198. Order of preference in admitting persons to land under Sections 195 and 197.—(1)................. (2) ................................ (3) ................................ (4) ................................ (5) No order for cancellation of an allotment or lease shall be made under sub-section (4), unless a notice to show cause is served on the person in whose favour the allotment or lease was made or on his legal representatives : Provided that no such notice shall be necessary in proceedings for the cancellation of any allotment or lease where such proceedings were pending before the Collector or any other Court or authority on August 18, 1980. (6) Every notice to show cause mentioned in sub-section (5) may be issued— (a) in the case of an allotment of land made before November 10, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the said date, before the expiry of a period of [seven years] from the said date; and (b) in the case of an allotment of land made on or after the said date, before the expiry of a period of [five years from the date of such allotment or lease or up to November 10, 1987, whichever be later.]” 8. In the present case the lease was granted on 29th January, 1982, hence the limitation for filing the application was up to November 10, 1987 according to Section 198(6)(b). The application has been filed in the present case on 3rd/4th August, 1987, which was well within the time. The submission, which has been pressed by Counsel for the petitioners, is that no show cause notice was issued under Section 198(5) before 10th May, 2006. The issue that if an application is filed within time as provided under Section 198(6), non-issue of show cause notice will whether vitiate the proceeding has been decided in Writ Petition No. 13548 of 2008 (Ram Dev and another v. State of U.P. and others), decided on 5th May, 2008. The issue that if an application is filed within time as provided under Section 198(6), non-issue of show cause notice will whether vitiate the proceeding has been decided in Writ Petition No. 13548 of 2008 (Ram Dev and another v. State of U.P. and others), decided on 5th May, 2008. Considering Section 198 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, following was laid down in Ram Dev’s case (supra) : “In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is to be held that in case an applicant files an application under Section 198(4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 within time as prescribed under Section 198(6), the application cannot be rejected as barred by time even though no formal order has been passed for issue of notice. In first writ petition, the application was filed well within the time and notices were also issued on 27th January, 2003. The mere fact that subsequently again on 27th August, 2004 show cause notice was issued was inconsequential and no error has been committed by Additional Collector in holding the application to be maintainable by order dated 30th April, 2007. The revisional Court has rightly affirmed the said order. Writ Petition No.13548 of 2008 is liable to be dismissed.” 9. In view of the law laid down by this Court in Ram Dev’s case (supra), the submission of the petitioners that since no show cause notice was issued, the proceedings were vitiated cannot be accepted. 10. Now remains the last submission of Counsel for the petitioners that application having been dismissed in default on 18th January, 1990 without recalling the order, the case could not have been decided on merits. From a perusal of the materials brought on the record, it is clear that Additional Collector on 28th August, 1987 passed orders on merits against which petitioner had filed revision, which was remanded on 30th July, 2001 for passing fresh order. The Collector thereafter passed order on merits on 5th June, 2006 cancelling the lease against which revision was filed, which has been dismissed. The matter having been remanded from the revisional Court by order dated 30th July, 2001 to the Collector for deciding afresh, the submission that application could not have been decided on merits is misconceived. No error was committed by the Collector in deciding the application on merits. 11. The matter having been remanded from the revisional Court by order dated 30th July, 2001 to the Collector for deciding afresh, the submission that application could not have been decided on merits is misconceived. No error was committed by the Collector in deciding the application on merits. 11. None of the submissions raised by Counsel for the petitioners, has any substance. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. ————