JUDGMENT M.P. Pandey, Member. - This is a revision against the order dated September 30, 1969 passed by Tahsildar/Asstt. Collector Phulpur, district Allahabad in case No. 2 under Section 137-A of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard learned counsels of both the parties. The brief facts of the case are given below:- 3. The dispute is regarding plot No. 789/4 (8 bighas). Sadasheo a member of the Gaon Sabha submitted a report before the Tahsildar that this plot was a big Talab, one Sheo Ambar had occupied a portion of it but he was ejected under Section 212-A of the Z.A. and L.R. Act. He further alleged that now Sheo Ambar Opp. party had deposited ten times rent and got a Bhumidhari certificate. He prayed that the certificate should be cancelled because the opp. party was not Sirdar of the land in dispute. 4. The opposite party contested the proceedings on the ground that he was in possession of the land in dispute from a long time, i.e., right from 1366F upto the present moment. He filed extracts of Khatauni of 1361, 1363, 1365 and 1369 Fasli. He alleged that no doubt an order of ejectment was passed against him under Section 212-A, but it was not executed and his name continued to be recorded as Sirdar of the land in dispute and in this way he had, by process of limitation, become Sirdar. The learned of Tahsildar came to the conclusion that the opp. party was wrongly entered as Sirdar when he was ordered to be ejected and as he was not Sirdar he was not entitled to a Bhumidhari Sanand. He cancelled the certificate. 5. Against this order an appeal was filed before the learned Addl. Commissioner, who dismissed it by his order dated March 17, 1972 on the ground that, even by process of limitation, the O.P.- Appellant had not perfected his rights of a Sirdar. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed. 6. This revision is liable to be dismissed on a legal point which has emerged from amendment of Section 210 by the Uttar Pradesh Land Laws Amendment Act 1976 published in U.P. Gazette Extraordinary dated June 15, 1976. The amendment of Section 210 has omitted sub-section (3) of Section 210 of the unamended or original Section. 6. This revision is liable to be dismissed on a legal point which has emerged from amendment of Section 210 by the Uttar Pradesh Land Laws Amendment Act 1976 published in U.P. Gazette Extraordinary dated June 15, 1976. The amendment of Section 210 has omitted sub-section (3) of Section 210 of the unamended or original Section. Sub-section (3) of the unamended section is given below:- "If a suit is not brought under Section 209 or decree obtained in any such suit is not executed within the period of limitation provided for the filing of the suit or execution of the decree, the person taking or retaining possession shall- (iii) In any case to which provisions of clause (b) of Section 209 apply, become a Sirdar or Asami as is he had been admitted to the possessions of the land by the Gaon Sabha. Provisions of clause (b) of Section 209 relate to land which does not form part of the holding of a Bhumidhar, or Sirdar or Asami, i.e., it relates to the land belonging to Gaon Sabha. So formerly if a suit was not brought for the ejectment of a trespasser of Gaon Sabha land and if the decree was not executed within the period of limitation, the trespasser could become a Sirdar or Asami as if he had been admitted to the possession of the land by the Gaon Sabha. Before this amendment a trespasser of G. Samaj land could perfect his rights as a Sirdar, by process of limitation, but after this amendment he cannot perfect his rights as Sirdar. If a trespasser occupies Gaon Samaj Land, he remains a trespasser until he is ejected. This amendment is deemed to have been inserted from the very beginning of the Act. This means that even if the O.P. Revisionist had acquired any Sirdari rights by process of limitation, those rights stand extinguished and he is nothing but a rank trespasser. He is not a Sirdar because the law does not envisage that he can acquire Sirdari rights over Gaon Samaj land by means of trespass. Since he is not a Sirdar, he is not entitled to a Bhumidhari certificate, and therefore, that certificate was rightly cancelled by the learned Tahsildar." 7. In view of the above the revision is dismissed.