JUDGMENT G.D. Sahgal, J. - This appeal has been referred to us for disposal by a learned single Judge of this Court as the sole question involved therein relating to jurisdiction is of great general importance and merits for an authoritative decision by a Bench of this Court. 2. The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed in the court of the Munsif East, Hardoi by the Appellants against the Respondents praying for an injunction that the Defendants be restrained from interfering with the exercise of sirdari rights by the Plaintiffs over the land in suit and with their possession thereon and not to destroy the crop of bajra sown by the Appellants standing thereon. In the alternative, it was prayed that if during the pendency of the suit the Defendants take possession over the land and destroy the crops standing thereon or damage it, a decree for possession also be passed in their favour and pendente lite and future mesne profits be also decreed. 3. Of the Appellants, Appellant No. (sic) claimed himself to be the sole sirdar of plot No. 19/1, while as to the other plots in the suit, both the Appellants claimed themselves to be sirdars jointly. Their complaint was that Chhota, Defendant-Respondent No. 6, had in collusion with the Gram Samaj and Lekhpal got his name entered over plots Nos. 4 and 5 and on the basis of the said entry wanted to interfere with the possession of the Plaintiffs and that the Gram Samaj got proceedings u/s 211A of the UPZA and LR Act initiated against them which eventually resulted in an order being passed against them. It was in these circumstances that this suit was filed. 4. The parties went to trial in the trial court on a number of issues, one of the issues being as to whether the civil court had jurisdiction. The learned Munsif decided in favour of the Plaintiffs and entertained the suit. There was an appeal to the District Judge which was transferred to the Civil Judge, Hardoi who allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial court that the suit was cognizable by the civil court directing that the record be sent back to the trial court for returning the plaint to the Plaintiffs for presentation to the revenue court. This appeal is directed against that order of the learned Civil Judge. 5. This appeal is directed against that order of the learned Civil Judge. 5. We have, therefore, to see whether the suit was cognizable by a civil court where it was instituted or is it that it should have been instituted in the revenue court. 6. The Plaintiffs-Appellants are aggrieved by an order passed against them u/s 211A of the ZA Act. This section provides for a summary procedure for ejectment of persons occupying land without title. Under Sub-section (1) of this section where on an application from the Chairman, member or Secretary of the Land Management Committee or on facts coming to his notice otherwise, the Collector is satisfied that any person who is liable to ejectment on the suit of the Gaon Sabha otherwise than u/s 212 continues to be in possession of the land otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Act or has transferred possession of the land to any other person, the Collector may, if he thinks that it is necessary so to do, issue a notice to such person and to every other person in possession through him to appear within a time to be fixed by him and to show cause why an order of ejectment be not made against them. Under Sub-section (2) the Gaon Sabha and all other persons interested in the land have to be made a party in all such proceedings. Under Sub-section (3) where the person does not appear in pursuance of the notice under Sub-section (1) or if he appears but does not contest the notice, the Collector may make an order for the ejectment of such person and every other person claiming possession through him. Sub-section (4) provides that if the person appears, in pursuance of the notice under Sub-section (3) and files any objection, the Collector shall proceed to hear the Gaon Sabha and the objector and any evidence which they may adduce. Under Sub-section (5) if the Collector is satisfied that such person is liable to ejectment as aforesaid, he shall pass an order for ejectment of such person and every other person in possession through him. Under Sub-section (5) if the Collector is satisfied that such person is liable to ejectment as aforesaid, he shall pass an order for ejectment of such person and every other person in possession through him. Sub-section (6) further provides that where an order for ejectment has been passed, the person against whom the order has been passed, may institute a suit to establish the right claimed by him but subject to the results of such suit the order passed under Sub-section (3) or (5) shall be conclusive. 7. This suit being against an order u/s 211A has obviously been filed under Sub-section (6) of Section 211A with the prayer above referred to, namely, the prayer for an injunction and in the alternative, for possession and mesne profits. It is to be seen whether this could be filed in the civil court or is it that it should have been filed in the revenue court. 8. Section 331 of the ZA Act provides that no court other than a court mentioned in column 4 of Schedule II shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, take cognizance of any suit, application or proceedings mentioned in column 3 thereof, or of a suit, application or proceeding based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application. It also provides in an explanation that if the cause of action is one in respect of which relief may be granted by the revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the civil court may not be identical to that which the revenue court would have granted. 9. Thus the contention on behalf of the Defendants Respondents is that it is immaterial that the relief of injunction asked for in the suit cannot be granted by the revenue court but as the cause of action is one in respect of which a relief for declaration may be granted by the revenue court u/s 229-B of the ZA. Act, Section 331 of the Act would still apply as a bar to its cognizance by the civil court as this relief is one that can be granted under serial No. 34 of Schedule II of the Act by an Assistant Collector of the First Glass which is a revenue Court. 10. Act, Section 331 of the Act would still apply as a bar to its cognizance by the civil court as this relief is one that can be granted under serial No. 34 of Schedule II of the Act by an Assistant Collector of the First Glass which is a revenue Court. 10. As to the relief for possession, the argument is that the suit would be coveted by Section 209 of the UPZA and LR Act and as such, a suit also can be filed before an Assistant Collector of the First class in view of serial No. 24 of the same Schedule, Section 331 of the Act would apply and would bar its cognizance by the civil court. 11. We have thus to examine how far, if at all, these contentions are correct. 12. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 211-A of the ZA Act notice of ejectment can be issued only to persons who are liable to ejectment on the suit of the Gaon Sabha otherwise than u/s 212 if they continue to be in possession of the land otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the ZA Act or they have transferred possession of the land to any other person. 13. The Appellants claim to be sirdars of the land in dispute. Assuming that they are Sirdars, it is only u/s 201 of the ZA Act that they would be liable to ejectment from their holding on the suit of the Gaon Sabha. They can be so liable to be ejected on any of the grounds mentioned in Sections 167, 206 212 of the ZA Act. 14. There is yet another provision under which a sirdar can be ejected by the Gaon Sabha and it is Section 211. Section 211-A will not apply to cases, as specifically provided therein, which are covered by Section 212. Let us, therefore, examine the provisions of Sections 167, 206 and 211 of the Act. 15. Section 167 provides that where a sirdar we are not concerned with asami in this case has made any transfer in contravention of the provisions of the Act, the transferee and every person who may have thus obtained possession of the whole or part of the holding shall be liable to ejectment. 16. 15. Section 167 provides that where a sirdar we are not concerned with asami in this case has made any transfer in contravention of the provisions of the Act, the transferee and every person who may have thus obtained possession of the whole or part of the holding shall be liable to ejectment. 16. u/s 206 the liability for ejectment arises on the using of land for any purpose other than a purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry which includes pisciculture and poultry farming. 17. u/s 211 any person who become a sirdar under the provisions of Section 210(1) becomes liable to ejectment. u/s 210 if a suit is not brought u/s 209 or a decree obtained in any such suit is not executed within the period of limitation provided for the filing of the suit or the execution of the decree, the person taking or retaining possession shall, where the land forms part of the holding of a bhumidhar or sirdar, become a sirdar thereof. Thus if a person becomes a sirdar under this provision of law, he becomes liable to ejectment. 18. In short, action u/s 211-A of the ZA Act can be taken against a sirdar only if he has made a transfer in contravention of the provisions of the Act or has used the land in contravention of the provisions of the Act. It can also be taken against a sirdar who derives his right as such on a suit not being brought against him u/s 209 or on a decree obtained in any such suit being not executed against him, within the period of limitation provided for the filing of the suit or the execution of the decree as the case may be. 19. The nature of the right to file a suit on the basis of which a suit for ejectment is filed in the three cases is, however, different which will appear from the following discussion. 20. u/s 190 of the Act, in so far as it is relevant, the interest of a sirdar in a holding or any part thereof would cease when the holding or part thereof has been transferred, let out or used in contravention of the provisions of the Act or when he has been ejected in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 21. 21. A suit u/s 167 is filed against a sirdar when he has made any transfer in contravention of the provisions of the Act. 22. u/s 190 of the Act as soon as he has made such a transfer, his interest as sirdar would cease. 23. u/s 206 of the Act a sirdar becomes liable to ejectment for using land for any purpose other than a purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry etc. u/s 190 such a sirdar also ceases to be a sirdar as soon as he has used the land in contravention of the provisions of the Act. 24. Under Sections 167 and 206, therefore, the Gaon Sabha becomes entitled to file a suit because the sirdar has ceased to be the sirdar of the land, for if the suit is filed, the basis of the suit is his ceasing to be sirdar of the land by his acting in contravention of the provisions of the Act by either transferring the land against those provisions or perverting it. 25. The suit contemplated u/s 211, however, is a suit against a sirdar himself by virtue of his being a sirdar who has acquired his rights as such u/s 210(i) of the Act. 26. Thus while a suit contemplated under Sections 167 and 206 of the ZA Act is filed because the Defendant has ceased to be a sirdar, the basis of the filing of a suit u/s 211 is that the sirdar against whom such a suit is filed belongs to a particular class of sirdar. 27. There has been some controversy in this case regarding the nature of the order of ejectment passed necessitating the institution of the suit giving rise to this appeal. However, in view of the certified copy of the notice (Ex. 14) and the certified copy of the order sheet dated the 6th of March, 1962 (Ex. A-1), it is clear that the order of ejectment was passed against the Appellants in proceedings u/s 211 of the Act. 28. The allegations in the plaint indicate that the suit came to be instituted prior to the Appellant's actual ejectment in furtherance of the order of ejectment passed against them in proceedings u/s 211-A of the Act. There was thus no occasion to seek relief for possession in the suit. 28. The allegations in the plaint indicate that the suit came to be instituted prior to the Appellant's actual ejectment in furtherance of the order of ejectment passed against them in proceedings u/s 211-A of the Act. There was thus no occasion to seek relief for possession in the suit. In case it had been filed subsequent to the actual ejectment of the Plaintiffs-Appellants, it would have been obligatory for them to seek a relief for possession. This brings us to the contention on behalf of the Respondents that such a suit for possession would be covered by Section 209 of the ZA Act. That contention appears to be without any substance. A perusal of Section 209 would bear out that a suit for possession under it can be maintained only against a person taking or retaining possession of land otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the law for the time being in force. In a case where dispossession is effected in execution of an order of ejectment passed in proceedings u/s 211-A, the person dispossessed can by no means maintain that the person put in possession has taken or retained possession of land otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of law for the time being in force. It would rather be just the other way, i.e. the person thus put in possession would be taking or retaining the land in accordance with the provisions of Section 211-A. It thus follows that a suit for possession brought subsequent to the Plaintiff's dispossession under an order passed in proceedings u/s 211-A would not at all be a suit of the nature covered by Section 209 of the Act but would be a suit of a completely different nature and would thus be cognizable by a civil court because Section 331 of the Act would not at all apply to bar its cognizance by the Civil Court. 29. Coming back now to the position that the suit giving rise to this appeal has on the very allegations in the plaint been filed at a time when the Plaintiffs-Appellants were in possession of the disputed land and only an order of ejectment u/s 211-A had been passed against them, we have to see if its cognizance by the civil court is barred by Section 331 of the ZA Act. This provision of law will apply only if it is possible to hold that such a suit is in respect of a cause of action for which relief can be had from the revenue court by filing a suit u/s 229-B of the ZA Act under which a suit for declaration can be filed in the revenue court. 30. There is nothing on record to indicate on which of the several grounds under which it is possible to take proceedings u/s 211-A were the proceedings actually taken against the Appellants in the instant case. If the suit was filed on any of the grounds contemplated u/s 167 or 206 of the Abolition Act, i.e., on the ground of making a transfer by the Defendants in contravention of the provisions of the Act or on the ground of putting the land to use not permitted by law, then the basis of the suit as already pointed out would be the ceasing of the Plaintiffs the sirdars of the land as a result of their action. In such circumstances, if the Plaintiffs are able to show that they have not transferred or perverted the land and were still sirdars of the land, the order of ejectment passed against them u/s 211-A would not be binding on them. Thus if the proceedings u/s 211-A were initiated in the instant case on the ground of transfer or perversion, it would be possible for the Appellants to claim the relief of declaration u/s 229-B alleging that they were sirdars of the land still as they had not made any transfer or did any act of perversion. In such an event Section 331 would apply as a bar to the cognizance of the suit by the civil court. 31. If the proceedings u/s 211-A, however, were taken against the Appellants on the ground that they were sirdars having acquired such rights u/s 210(i), the position would be different because in that case they would still be the sirdars of the land, notwithstanding the order of ejectment against them in so far as on their own showing they had not actually been ejected on the date of the suit giving rise to this appeal. In that event there would be no occasion for them to seek a relief of declaration that they are sirdars for the simple reason that, as indicated above, they continued to be sirdars till the date of the suit notwithstanding the order of ejectment passed against them u/s 211-A. In such circumstances what they are required to establish in the suit is not that they are sirdars as in the case of those to which the provisions of Sections 167 and 209, applied, but they have to establish that they are sirdars not liable to ejectment u/s 211, i.e., they have acquired their sirdari rights otherwise than u/s 210(i) of the Act, such a suit would not be covered by Section 229-B and as such Section 331 would not be a bar to its cognizance by the civil court. 32. In the circumstances discussed above, we have to remand the case to the first appellate court to ascertain the ground on which the proceedings u/s 211-A were taken against the Appellants and to dispose of the question of jurisdiction thereafter in the light of our observations made earlier. 33. This second appeal came to be referred to a Division Bench cm the contention of the Respondents that the decision in the case of Dasaiyan v. Kedar Nath. 1963 ALJ 415 required reconsideration. That case relates to proceedings u/s 212-A and not to proceedings u/s 211-A. As such it did not at all arise for consideration for the disposal of this appeal. 34. We accordingly remand the case to the Civil Judge, Hardoi, who shall first ascertain as to whether the order of ejectment passed against the Plaintiffs-Appellants u/s 211-A was passed on the ground covered by Section 167 or 206 or 211 of the ZA and LR Act and there dispose of the question of jurisdiction in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment. He shall decide the appeal on the merits if he finds that the order of ejectment was based on a ground covered by Section 211. Parties shall bear their own costs in this appeal. Case remanded.