ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. Upon conducting an enquiry, the appellant was issued a patta on 02.09.1991. The appellant has been in possession and enjoyment of the property pursuant to the issuance of the said patta. 3. A show cause notice was issued on 16.03.2000, invoking Section 198(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why the allotment of land made in her favour should not be cancelled on the premise that, prima facie, it appears that the respondent was not a resident of the village in which the property is situated. As the reply filed by the Appellant was found, to not be satisfactory, a final order was passed by the District Magistrate cancelling the patta issued in favour of the appellant. This was confirmed by the revisional authority. Accordingly, a writ petition came to be filed by the appellant against the order of the revisional authority. 4. In the writ petition filed, the appellant raised a legal plea by placing reliance upon sub-section (6) of Section 198 of the Act which states as follows: "Section 198. Order of preference in admitting persons to land under Section 195 and 197- (4) The Collector may of his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment of land inquire in the manner prescribed into such allotment and if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular, he may cancel the allotment and the lease, if any. (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, which ever be later." 5. However, the impugned order was passed without adjudicating upon the said plea raised. The High Court thus, confirmed the order passed by the revisional authority, before whom also the said plea had been raised. Thus, the legal plea raised by the appellant has not been adjudicated upon. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that inasmuch as the respondent(s) having invoked Section 198(4) of the Act, cannot re-open the case, after the expiry of five years. Therefore, there is an apparent lack of jurisdiction even for the initiation of the proceeding for cancellation of the patta issued. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the State, by placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported as Additional Commissioner Revenue And Others vs. Akhalaq Hussain And Another, (2020) 4 SCC 507 , submits that the order issuing the patta being void ab initio, the question of limitation would not arise. Therefore, he pressed into service Section 166 of the Act which states that every transfer made in contravention of the Act, shall be void. 8. We have perused the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent(s). The said judgment deals with an action taken on the premise that the issuance of the patta being contrary to law, is void ab initio. However, in the case on hand, admittedly, a show cause notice had been issued under Section 198(4) of the Act. Therefore, even the respondent(s) proceeded on the footing that there was only an irregularity in the issuance of the Patta and, therefore, the same would come under the aforesaid provision. In that eventuality, the rigour of Section 198(6)(b) of the Act would come into play and, therefore, the period of limitation of five years would have to be applied. 9. Therefore, even the respondent(s) proceeded on the footing that there was only an irregularity in the issuance of the Patta and, therefore, the same would come under the aforesaid provision. In that eventuality, the rigour of Section 198(6)(b) of the Act would come into play and, therefore, the period of limitation of five years would have to be applied. 9. On facts, it is not in dispute that the show cause notice had been issued after the expiry of the period mandated under Section 198(6)(b) of the Act. 10. Thus, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned judgment which confirmed the order passed by respondent no. 1- revisional authority. 11. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside and the appeal stands allowed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.