JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by Sri S.K. Sarkar, Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, recommending that the revision petition made on behalf of Jokhan against the order dated September 4, 1971 passed by the Tahsildar/Assistant Collector First Class Gonda in proceedings under Section 122-B, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act may be dismissed. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. On the report of the Lekhpal that the revisionist had made unauthorised occupation of plot No. 589/1 in village Dhanauli which was Gaon Sabha property, for the last four years, notice in Z.A. Form 49-A was issued to him. The revisionist filed an objection to the effect that he was merely cultivating the land given to him by the consolidation authorities and had not encroached upon any Gaon Sabha land. The only evidence the revisionist produced was his own evidence to the same effect. The report of the Supervisor Kanungo, which is accompanied by a site-map, however, shows that the revisionist has amalgamated the plot in dispute in his Chak No. 570. The learned Tahsildar holding the revisionist to be a trespasser has ode red his ejectment. 4. The grounds taken in the revision are that the disputed plot is part of his Chak No. 570 and is not Gaon Sabha property, that a bona fide question of title is involved and the trial court had no jurisdiction to decide the case, and that the revisionist is Sirdar of plot No. 570 of which the disputed land is a part. These grounds have no substance at all. The notice in Z.A. Form 49-A issued to the revisionist clearly mentioned that the plot encroached upon was plot No. 589/1. This plot is recorded as Gaon Sabha property both in the Khatauni and the Khasra. The Revisionist did not file the slightest evidence suggesting that plot No. 589/1 was not Gaon Sabha property or that he had slightest title to this plot. 5. In the course of the argument the learned counsel for the revisionist has, however, raised a new point to the effect that the proceedings are vitiated inasmuch as the State Government was not a party. 5. In the course of the argument the learned counsel for the revisionist has, however, raised a new point to the effect that the proceedings are vitiated inasmuch as the State Government was not a party. He has referred to a decision reported in State of U.P. v. Smt. Ram Sri, 1975 R.D. 339 in which a learned Bench of the Allahabad High Court has decided the question whether the State Government was entitled to file an appeal in a case where the rights, title and interest of the intermediaries had been vested in the Gaon Sabha under Section 17 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The learned Bench has observed as follows:- "It would suffice to mention that vesting of right, title or interest has the object of divesting the intermediaries whereas the vesting under Section 117 of the Act has the limited purpose of placing the Gaon Sabha into possession for the purposes of enabling the Gaon Sabha to acquire present and immediate right to enjoy the same. With reference to the context in which the word 'vest' has been used in Section 117(1) of the Act, it does not mean that Gaon Sabha was conferred absolute title or right over the things mentioned therein after divesting the State of its title. As explained above, the Gaon Sabha has been given the right of superintendence, management and control. Title over these items regarding which notification under Section 117(1) has been issued still remains with the State. It is this retention of the title that justifies the power of resumption under Section 117(6) of the Act. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the State was merely a formal owner and does not have paramount title is wholly untenable. Faced with the distinction of phraseology used in sub-sections (4) and (6) to that of Section 117(1) of the Act, the learned counsel for the respondent asserted that the same was done by way of abundant caution and no special significance could be attached to it. We don not find any merit in this approach. The distinction made is obvious, deliberate and purposively incorporated to achieve different objects. We, accordingly, find that Section 117(1) of the Act when it speaks of certain things vesting in the Gaon Sabha, it does not mean that ownership has passed therein in the Gaon Sabha." 6. We don not find any merit in this approach. The distinction made is obvious, deliberate and purposively incorporated to achieve different objects. We, accordingly, find that Section 117(1) of the Act when it speaks of certain things vesting in the Gaon Sabha, it does not mean that ownership has passed therein in the Gaon Sabha." 6. The learned District Government Counsel while conceding the validity of the above observations, has argued that under the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act both the State and the Goan Sabha have the title over the land. The State is the ultimate owner; whereas the Gaon Sabha has been given the rights of superintendence, management and control. This fact would, however, not vitiate the proceedings in the present case in any manner. The report in the present case was made by the Lekhpal who as Lekhpal is a functionary of the State, while as the Secretary of the Land Management Committee he is a functionary of the Land Management Committee. Further, the plea that prejudice was caused to the State because of non-impleadment of the State formally in the proceedings could have been taken by the State. The revisionist was in no way prejudiced by the and had also not taken any such plea in the trial court. As far as the State is concerned, the District Government Counsel not only has not taken the plea but has actually opposed the plea. Under the circumstances, I do not think that the proceedings have been vitiated merely because the State was not formally impleaded in the trail court. 7. I entirely agree with the recommendation of the learned Commissioner that the revision petition has no merit. The revision is accordingly dismissed.