JUDGMENT Lakshmi Prasad, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The dispute in this case relates to plot No. 2341 area of which is 25 bighas. At the instance of Gaon Sabha opposite party No. 2 proceedings were started under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioners in respect of the aforesaid plot. As the Magistrate was not able to decide the question of possession he made a reference to the Court of Munsif, Rae Bareli as envisaged by Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Munsif found that the petitioners were in possession. Accordingly an order of release in the said proceedings under Section 145 was passed in favour of the petitioners. Thereafter an application was moved on behalf of opposite party No. 2 before opposite party No. 1 for taking action under sub-section (2) of Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Opposite party No. 1 issued notice to the petitioners who objected to the proceedings being taken under the aforesaid provision by opposite party No. 1 on the ground that as there existed a dispute regarding a bona fide question of title opposite party No. 1 was not competent to proceed under Rules 115-C to 115-H of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules. Opposite party No. 1 rejected the objection and decided the dispute in favour of opposite party No. 2 directing that possession be delivered to opposite party No. 2 and further the petitioners should pay Rs. 2,5001/- as damages to opposite party No. 2. A copy of that order is Annexure 1. It is in these circumstances that the present petition is filed for quashing of the aforesaid order Annexure 1. 2. The petition is opposed by the opposite parties. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Of the two contentions the one, viz. whether or not opposite party No. 1 was competent to proceed under sub-section (2) of Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, is given up by the learned counsel for the petitioners who concedes that he, having been conferred powers by the State Government in that behalf, was competent to draw proceedings under Section 122-B. Thus there remains only the other contention to be determined, viz. whether or not opposite party No. 1 had jurisdiction to proceed under Section 122-B even though there existed a dispute involving a bona fide question of title. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that in cases which involve a bona fide question of title the Collector has no jurisdiction to proceed under Section 122-B. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, however, contends that in the instant case there was no dispute involving a bona fide question of title and as such opposite party No. 1 was competent to proceed under Section 122-B. Having regard to the facts of the case already enumerated, I see no substance in the contention that the present case involved no bona fide question of title. The fact, that petitioners claim right from the beginning that they have become sirdar's by virtue of having remained in possession for the requisite period of time, is enough to show that they raised a bona fide dispute regarding the question of title. That being so, it is obvious from the language of sub-section (2) of Section 122-B that opposite party No. 1 had no jurisdiction to proceed thereunder. In that view of the matter the impugned order must be quashed. 5. The petition is allowed with costs and the impugned order Annexure 1 is quashed.