JUDGMENT S.D. Khare, J. - This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for the recovery of Rs. 500/- as damages and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from realising baithaki dues from shopkeepers who keep their shops in the mela which takes place on every Monday in grove bearing Khasra No. 531/1 (area 1 bigha 6 biswas and 3 dhurs) situate in village Ramnagar, tappa Chaurasi, pargana Khairagarh, district Allahabad. It was further claimed in that suit that the defendants had no right to realise mela dues from the sellers and purchasers of cattle sold on that land. Another prayer was that the defendants be restrained from interfering with the rights of the plaintiffs to collect the dues called baithaki and Mahsul, mentioned above. 2. It was held by the lower appellate court that the plaintiff-appellants were the bhumidhars of the grove in suit and that the admitted case of the parties was that the mela and bazar used to be held on that land for very long time and the zamindars used to take its proceeds. The plaintiffs suit was dismissed on the ground that the rights of the zamindars had vested in the Government under Sec. 6 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which came into force on 1st July, 1962, and were conferred first on the District Board defendant No. 1, and subsequently on the Gaon Samaj, defendant No. 5. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. 3. The plaintiff's contention in this second appeal is that since they are the bhumidhars of the land in question they alone can utilise it in any manner they liked and the rights of the zamindars, if any, which they had before 1st July, 1952, have become extinguished and could vested neither in the Government nor in the District Board nor in the Gaon Samaj. 4. The second appeal first came up for hearing before a single Judge of this Court who has referred it to a larger bench because, in his opinion, the point involved in this appeal is of great importance and is not covered by any authority of this Court. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. In our opinion there is no force in this appeal. 6. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. In our opinion there is no force in this appeal. 6. The relevant sections of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act which have to be considered are Secs. 6, 18, 117 and 142. The plaintiffs held this land as grove-holders and, therefore, under the provisions of Sec. 18(1) (e) of the Act they became the bhumidhars of this plot. The relevant portion of the Sec. 18 (1) (e) of the Act reads as follows:- "Subject to the provisions of Secs-10, 15, 16 and 17 all lands .... held by a grove-holder on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting shall be deemed to be settled by the State Government with such intermediary, lessee, tenant, grantee or grove-holder, as the case may be, who shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be entitled to take or retain possession as a bhumidhar thereof". 7. Sec. 142 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act provides that "a bhumidhar shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, have the right to the exclusive possession of all land in respect of which he is a bhumidhar and use it for any purpose whatsoever." It is because of the provisions contained in Sec. 142 of the Act that the argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that after the plaintiffs had become bhumidhars they had the right to the exclusive possession of the plot of which they had become bhumidhars and could use it for any purpose whatsoever. That argument has no force because it is provided in Sec. 142 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act that the provisions of that section will be subject to the other provisions of the Act. 8. Prior to the abolition of the zamindari the zamindars (intermediaries) used to hold melas on the grove in question and realised all its dues. 8. Prior to the abolition of the zamindari the zamindars (intermediaries) used to hold melas on the grove in question and realised all its dues. After the Act came into force the consequences of vesting, as provided in Sec. 6 of the Act, were that "(a) all rights, title and interest of all the intermediaries - (i) in every estate in such area including land (cultivable or barren), grove-land, forests whether within or outside village boundaries, trees (other than trees in village abadi, holding or grove), fisheries, tanks, ponds water-channels, ferries, pathways, abadi sites, hats, bazars and melas (other than hats, bazars and melas held upon land to which clauses (a) to (c) of sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 18 apply), shall cease and be vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh free from all encumbrances." 9. The grove in question was not one to which Clauses (a) to (c) of sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 18 of the Act applied. Therefore, the effect of Sec. 6 of the Act was that upon the issue of notification under Sec. 4 of the Act the right to hold hats, bazars and melas on the land in question vested in the State. 10. Now we have to consider the effect of Sec. 117 of the Act which provides that "at any time after the publication of the notification mentioned in Sec. 4 the State Government may by notification in the gazette declare "that, as from the date to be specified............(vi) hats, bazars, melas, except hats, bazars and melas held on land to which provisions of Clauses (a) to (c) of sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 18 or any land referred to in Sec. 9 apply................ situate in a circle which had vested in the State under this Act, shall vest in the Gaon Samaj established for the circle...." 11. The result is that by virtue of Sec. 6 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act the rights in respect of melas on the grove land in question which at one time were held by the zamindars of that land vested in the State Government. Again under Sec. 117 of the said Act the same hats, bazars and melas came to be vested in the Gaon Samaj established for the circle. Again under Sec. 117 of the said Act the same hats, bazars and melas came to be vested in the Gaon Samaj established for the circle. The plaintiffs could not say that merely because the rights of the old zamindars had come to an end as a result of the enforcement of the Act they had become entitled to use the land of the grove in any manner they liked and to restrain the Gaon Samaj from holding the melas and realising its dues on that land. It is also evident that they could not claim any compensation from Gaon Samaj. The suit was rightly dismissed by the courts below. 12. There is no force in this second appeal and it is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.