Honble Pankaj Mithal, J.—The facts giving rise to this writ petition lies in a narrow campus.

2. A resolution was passed by the Land Management Committee village Kaseru, Tehsil Gabhana, District Aligarh on 27.2.1993 proposing to allot and lease out the land in dispute as Bhumidhari with non-transferable rights in favour of the petitioners. The said resolution was approved by the competent authority vide order dated 18.4.1993 and the names of petitioners were recorded in revenue records. A complaint was made after about 15 years on 11.2.2008 that the aforesaid allotment is irregular and as such is liable to be cancelled. On the said complaint, Case No. 57 under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was registered. Petitioners submitted an application/ objection dated 18.8.2008 alleging that complaint is patently barred by time and cannot be entertained. However, ignoring the application/objection of the petitioners dated 18.8.2008 notice dated 16.7.2009 was issued to them to show cause why the allotment made in their favour be not cancelled. Petitioners preferred a revision against the order of issuance of the said notice before the Board of Revenue and the same was decided on 1.9.2009 with the observation that the question of limitation as raised vide application dated 18.8.2008 be decided in accordance with law before proceeding on merits. Accordingly, the issue of limitation was considered vide order dated 16.11.2009 and the Collector without actually deciding the same directed for suo motu action for cancellation of the allotment/lease of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the aforesaid direction a revision was preferred by the petitioners which was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 24.12.2009.

3. The order of the Collector dated 16.11.2009 for initiating suo motu action for cancellation of the allotment/lease of the petitioners and the order of the Board of Revenue dated 24.12.2009 dismissing the revision have been assailed in this writ petition.

4. I have heard Sri S.N.Pandey, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Sri D.D.Chauhan who has appeared for respondent No. 3 and with their consent proceed to decide the writ petition on merits at this stage itself.

5. The only submission of Sri Pandey is that the Collector even in exercise of suo motu powers cannot initiate proceedings for cancellation of allotment/lease after expiry of period of limitation prescribed for issuing notice under Section 198(6) of the Act.

6. According to the learned Standing Counsel the limitation provided under Section 198(6) of the Act is applicable only where proceedings for cancellation have been initiated on the application of the person aggrieved and the same would not be applicable where Collector proceeds to take suo motu action for the cancellation of allotment.

7. In order to consider the above submission, it would be appropriate to first have a look on the relevant provisions of Section 198 of the Act, which are reproduced herein below :

“198. Order of preference in admitting persons to land under Sections 195 and 197.

(1) ............................................

(2) ............................................

(3) ............................................

(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.

(4-A) ..........................................

(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 wher