JUDGMENT S. Mubarak Hasan, Member. - This is a revision petition against the order dated April 11, 1970 passed by Tahsildar Padrauna, district Deoria in proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. Proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act started on the report of the Lekhpal dated April 15, 1969. It was alleged that the petitioner had taken unlawful possession over the land in dispute which belonged to Gaon Sabha. Petitioner filed objection claiming to have been in possession over the disputed land since long. He pleaded that a bona fide question of title was involved in the case and hence the proceedings under Section 122-B were not maintainable. 3. On April 11, 1970, the trial court ordered ejectment of the petitioner from the land in dispute and awarded Rs, 70/- as damages against him. 4. On July 23, 1970, the Additional Commissioner recommended that the order passed by the trial court be set aside and the revision be allowed. He held that a bona fide question of title was involved in the case and the petitioner will be deemed to have acquired Sirdari rights in the disputed land under Section 210 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner, having Z.A. and L.R. Act. He contended that a bona fide question of title was involved in the case and hence the proceedings under Section 122-B were not maintainable. He further contended that the trial court exercised jurisdiction illegally in ordering ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed land. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite party has drawn my attention to Section 210 as amended by the U.P. Land Laws Amendment Ordinance No. 17 of 1976 and contended that in view of the amended Section 210 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act a trespasser could not acquire Sirdari rights over the land which belonged to Gaon Sabha. He further argued that the amended Section 210 has retrospective effect. He contended that in view of the above circumstance the order passed by the trial court for ejectment of the petitioner from the land in dispute is correct and it does not call for any interference. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Section 210 as amended by the U.P. Land Laws Amendment Ordinance, 1976 does not have retrospective effect. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Section 210 as amended by the U.P. Land Laws Amendment Ordinance, 1976 does not have retrospective effect. He further argued that the petitioner had acquired vested right in the disputed land he could not be divested of it. He drew my attention to Section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act and contended that where any Uttar Pradesh Act repeals any enactment, the repeal shall not affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed. 8. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsels of the parties and have perused the record. Section 210 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act as it stood before amendment was as follows:- "If a suit is not brought under Section 209 or a decree obtained in any such suit is not executed within the period of limitation provided for the filing of the suit of the execution of the decree, the person taking or retaining possession shall- (i) where the land forms part of the holding of a Bhumidhar or Sirdar become a Sirdar thereof and the rights, title and interest of an Asami, if any, on such land shall be extinguished, (ii) Where the land forms part of the holding of an Asami on behalf of the Gaon Sabha become an Asami thereof holding from year to year; (iii) In any case to which the provisions of Clause (b) of Section 209 apply, become a Sirdar or Asami holding from year to year as if he had been admitted to the possession of the land by the Gaon Sabha." 9. By the U.P. Land Laws Amendment Ordinance No. 17 of 1976, Section 210 has been completely changed. The Amendment provides that 'For Section 210 of the principal Act, the following Section shall be substituted and be deemed always to have been substituted:- "210. By the U.P. Land Laws Amendment Ordinance No. 17 of 1976, Section 210 has been completely changed. The Amendment provides that 'For Section 210 of the principal Act, the following Section shall be substituted and be deemed always to have been substituted:- "210. If a suit for eviction from any land under Section 209 is not instituted by a Bhumidhar, Sirdar or Asami, or a decree for eviction obtained in any such suit is not executed by him, within the period of limitation provided fro the institution of such suit or the execution of such decree, as the case may be the person taking or retaining possession shall- (i) Where the land forms part of the holding of a Bhumidhar or Sirdar, become a Sirdar of such land, and the rights, title and interest of an Asami, if any in such land shall be extinguished. (ii) Where the land forms part of the holding of an Asami, on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, become an Asami thereof holding from year to year." 10. In view of the U.P. Land Laws Amendment Ordinance No. 17 of 1976 the new Section 210 will be deemed always to have been substituted as if the original Section 210 did not exist. Obviously the amendment has retrospective effect. The amended Section 210 does not provide for the acquisition of Sirdari right by a trespasser on Gaon Sabha land. Naturally, therefore, there was no question of the petitioner acquiring any right in the disputed land under the amended Section 210 which will be deemed always to have been substituted. He has, therefore, rightly been ordered to be ejected from the disputed land. There is no jurisdictional error in the order passed by the trial court. Revision is, accordingly dismissed.