JUDGMENT G.C. Mathur, J. - The Gram Samaj, respondent No. 2, filed an application purporting to be under Sec. 212-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for the eviction of the petitioners from plot No. 64. A copy of this application is annexed to the petition as Annexure 1. The petitioners filed a written statement objecting to the proceedings. On September 6, 1961, the Assistant Collector allowed the application and ordered the petitioners to be ejected from the land in dispute. This order is challenged by the petitioners. 2. The main contention of the petitioners is that Sec. 212-A was not applicable to the case and accordingly the order of the Assistant Collector is without jurisdiction. Sec- 212-A provides for a summary procedure for ejectment from land of public utility. It provides for ejectment of persons in possession of land referred to in Sec. 212. Sec. 212 which provides the regular procedure by way of suit for ejectment of persons from lands of public utility reads thus: "Any person who, on or after the eighth day of August, 1946, has been admitted as a tenure or grove-holder of, or being an intermediary has brought under his own cultivation or has planted the grove upon land which was recorded as or was customary common pasture land, cremation or burial ground, tank, pond, pathway or khalian, shall be liable, notwithstanding anything contained in Sec. 199, on the suit of the Gaon Sabha to ejectment from the land, on payment of such compensation as may be prescribed." 3. Sec. 212 contemplates land of two kinds, namely: (1) land of public utility to which a person has been admitted either as a tenure-holder or as a grove-holder and (2) land of public utility which was brought under his own cultivation by an intermediary or upon which an intermediary has planted a grove. It is, therefore, clear that Sec. 212, and consequently Sec. 212-A, apply to case where a person has a legal title in some land which was land of public utility and it is sought to evict that person in possession from such land. In the present case the only finding which has been recorded by the Assistant Collector is that the land was land of public utility, but that is not enough to attract the provisions of Sec. 212-A or 212. In the present case the only finding which has been recorded by the Assistant Collector is that the land was land of public utility, but that is not enough to attract the provisions of Sec. 212-A or 212. It has also to be established that the person in possession had a legal title in it either because he had been admitted as a tenant or as a groveholder or because, being an intermediary, he had himself cultivated it or had planted a grove thereupon. No such finding has been given in the present case. Secs. 212 and 212-A do not apply to land which vests in the Gram Samaj and over which some person has trespassed. Where eviction under Sec. 212 or 212-A is ordered the person in possession has to be paid compensation which also indicates that these two sections contemplate the acquisition of the legal right of the person in possession of the land. The application which was filed by the Gram Samaj itself shows that the land in dispute was not the type of land contemplated in Secs. 212 and 212-A. It is stated in the application that formerly the land was bunjar land, that the petitioner had no right of any kind in the land that by fraud the petitioners obtained a bhumidhari sanad in respect of this land which was cancelled at the instance of the Gram Samaj that the land belonged to the Gram Samaj and that the possession of the petitioners, was as trespassers. On the face of it the application did not make out a case under Sec. 212 A and should have been thrown out as not maintainable. I am, therefore, clearly of the opinion that the land in dispute was not land to which the provisions of Sec. 212-A apply and, consequently, the order of the Assistant Collector is totally without jurisdiction. 4. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Class dated September 6, 1961, purporting to be under Sec. 212-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is quashed. The petitioners will be entitled to the costs of this writ petition.