JUDGMENT H.N. Agrawal, Member. - This is a reference made by Sri Saiyid Husain, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad recommending that the revision against the order dated September 29, 1972 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ram Sanehi Ghat, district Bara Banki in case No. 1/1 under Section 211-A, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, may be allowed and the impugned order set aside. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and have gone through the record. None has appeared on behalf of the opposite parties to contest the revision. 3. Opposite party No. 1 Durga Prasad, had applied on November 20, 1968 under Section 211-A, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act that the revisionist Srimati Ramkali had wrongfully occupied plot No. 361, area 15, biswas 10 Biswansis in village Gohanna which had been set apart for 'Abadi' in consolidation proceedings, that she had laid foundations on it, that she was raising Kachcha boundaries and that she may be ejected. The revisionist Srimati Ramkali filed an objection to the effect that the plot was meant for Abadi and the revenue court had no jurisdiction, that prior to consolidation the plot was in the Khata of her husband who had planted trees twenty years ago and had also constructed boundaries and a small house on the land in suit prior to consolidation, and that after the death of her husband she herself was in possession. The trial court declared that the plot was Gaon Sabha property and ordered the ejectment of the revisionist. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the application under Section 211-A was time-barred, that the opposite party No. 1 being a private individual had no right to move an application under this section, that the land in suit was the old grove of the revisionist, and that the trial court has erred in the exercise of its jurisdiction in not considering the report of the Commissioner and the oral and documentary evidence on record. The learned counsel has also cited the decisions in Rai Amar Nath Agarwal v. Tahsildar Asstt. The learned counsel has also cited the decisions in Rai Amar Nath Agarwal v. Tahsildar Asstt. Collector, 1960 R.D. 310, in which it has been held that cases under Rule 115-C can only be taken by the Assistant Collector if the title to the land is not in dispute, but if the title is itself in dispute the only course open to the Land Management Committee, is to proceed by way of a suit for ejectment of a citizen cannot be deprived of his valuable right of holding land in summary proceedings under this rule. The learned counsel has also referred to the decision in Gram Samaj v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1969 R.D. 356 in which it has been held that the Land Management Committee can file a written statement or prefer an appeal or revision only after having passed a resolution. 5. The contention of the learned counsel that proceedings under Section 211-A of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act cannot be taken on the initiative of a private individual is correct. Section 211-A itself provides that the Collector may proceed under this Section if he is satisfied on an application from the Chairman, member or Secretary of the Land Management Committee or on facts otherwise coming to his notice. The intention of the section clearly is to debar applications from private individuals so as to reduce unnecessary burden on the Collector. If the purpose was that the Collector will proceed under this section on nay application, the section should have read as follows: "Where on an application from any person or on facts otherwise coming to his notice the Collector......" The addition of the words, Chairman, member or Secretary of the Land Management Committee clearly restricts the number of persons from whom such an application can be entertained. However, while the contention of the learned counsel is correct from the legal point of view, it is not correct factually. Durga Prasad, opposite party No. 1, is not a private individual but, as his application shows, is a member and Up-Pradhan of the Land Management Committee of the village. Thus, his application could have been entertained. 6. The contention that action could have been taken on the resolution of the Land Management Committee alone is not correct. Section 211-A enables the Collector to take action even on the application of a single member of the Land Management Committee. Thus, his application could have been entertained. 6. The contention that action could have been taken on the resolution of the Land Management Committee alone is not correct. Section 211-A enables the Collector to take action even on the application of a single member of the Land Management Committee. This application need not be with the consent of the other members of the Land Management Committee and need not be accompanied by a resolution of the Committee. The order of the trial court is, however, vitiated on other grounds. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist that the trial court has erred in ignoring the report of the spot inspection prepared by the Advocate Commissioner is correct. This report clearly shows that the land in dispute has a large number of fruit trees planted twelve to fifteen years back. The plantation has been done systematically in a row. The learned Additional Commissioner has also correctly observed that no extracts of Khasra and Khatauni have been filed at all to show that the land in dispute was Gaon Sabha property. The trial court could have asked either party to file the extracts from the revenue records before recording the finding that the land in question was in fact Gaon Sabha property. Unfortunately event he revisionist did not file the extract from the revenue records to show that the land in dispute was 'Abadi' land or land belonging to her husband or land which was not Gaon Sabha property. 7. The result is that I accept the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner, allow the revision, set aside the impugned order of the trial court, and remand the case to the learned Sub-Divisional Officer with the direction that he should decide it afresh according to law after giving both parties opportunity to file extracts form revenue records and such other evidence as may be necessary.