JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, M. - These are 8 connected revisions filed by Chhote Lal and others against the order dated July 30, 1974 passed by the Tahsildar Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Amethi, Distt. Sultanpur in cases under Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act rejecting the application of the revisionist to frame a preliminary issue to decide the question of title. The learned Commissioner who has heard the revisions together has recommended in his reference that the revisions may be rejected. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the revisionists. 3. The revisionist had prayed before the trial court that as they were in possession of the land over a number of years and a bona fide dispute of title was involved a preliminary issue may be framed to decide the question of title. The trial court held that in summary proceedings it was not necessary to frame any issue and that the points raised in the application of the revisionists will be duly considered in the final judgment. Accordingly the trial court rejected the application The learned Commissioner has also reaffirmed the same view observing that there was no question of framing any preliminary issue and that the trial court would in any case record a definite finding in the judgment whether a bona fide dispute of title was involved or not. 4. The view expressed by the courts below is perfectly should in law. Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act Provides for summary proceedings for ejectment of persons in wrongful occupation of Gaon Sabha land. Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of the section read as follows :- "(2). Where the land Management Committee or the local authority fail to take action in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) within a period of six months from the date of wrongful occupation, and one month from the date of damage or misappropriation, the Collector may, except in a case involving a bona fide question of title, on an application of the Chairman Member or Secretary of the Land Management Committee or the local authority, as the case may be, or on facts coming to his notice otherwise, take steps for the ejectment of the person in wrongful occupation of the land and for recovery of compensation for wrongful occupation of the land for damage to, or misappropriation of the property. (3) The procedure to be followed in any action take under sub-section (2) shall be such as may be prescribed. (4) The decision of the Collector under sub-section (2) shall subject to the result of a suit by the aggrieved party before a court of competent jurisdiction be final and conclusive anything to the contrary contained in any other law notwithstanding." 5. The provision that in a case involving bona fide question of title the Collector will not act under this section indicates that these proceedings are not in the nature of regular suit. This is further confirmed by the provision in sub-section (4) that the decision of the Collector under this section shall be subject to the result of a regular suit before a court of competence. The procedure to be followed under this section has been given in Rules 115-C to 115-H of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules. These rules provide that a notice in Z.A. Form 49- will be issued to the person in wrongful occupation of the land to comply with the notice or to show cause and if cause is shown such person will be given due opportunity to produce his evidence. But the rules nowhere provides that issues will also be framed. It is clear that provisions made in the Civil Procedure Code regarding filing of written statement and framing of issues etc. will not be applicable to proceedings under Section 122-B. The learned Tahsildar/Assistant Collector, 1st Class therefore, rightly rejected the prayer for framing an issue. Agreeing with the reference made by the learned Commissioner I reject the revision summarily. This order will govern all the connected revisions Nos. 77 to 83 of 1975-76 district Sultanpur.