JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - These are sixteen revisions filed by Mohan and fifteen others against the orders dated March 19, 1974 passed by the Tehsildar Utraula, district Gonda in proceedings under Rule 115-C of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The learned Commissioner has recommended that the orders of the trial court be set aside. He has taken this view under the impression that a bona fide question of title was involved merely because the revisionists had been shown to be in possession for a number of years. In other words, the learned Commissioner has equated possession with title. Possession and title are, however, legally two different concepts. Possession of a trespasser does not raise any bona fide question of title. The possession has to have some sanctity of law before it can raise a bona fide question of title. 4. The revisionists have in this Court filed affidavits in order to claim benefit of sub-section (4-F) of Section 122-B, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act as introduced by U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. This sub-section reads as follows: "(4-F) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing sub-sections, where any person who is landless agricultural labourer belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, is in occupation of any land vested in Gaon Sabha under Section 117 (not being land mentioned in Section 132), having occupied it from before June 30, 1975, and the land so occupied together with any land held by him from before the said date as Bhumidhar, Sirdar or Asami does not exceed 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres), then no action under this section shall be taken by the Land Management Committee or the Collector against such person and it shall be deemed that such person has been admitted as Sirdar of that land under Section 195." 5. The learned District Government Counsel has, on the other hand, argued that under the recent amendment no rights whatsoever shall accrue against the Gaon Sabha because of adverse possession irrespective of the length of such possession. 6. In the circumstances, I am unable to accept the recommendations of the learned Commissioner in these revisions. In the interest of justice I remand these revisions to the learned Commissioner for a re-hearing after due notice to the parties. 6. In the circumstances, I am unable to accept the recommendations of the learned Commissioner in these revisions. In the interest of justice I remand these revisions to the learned Commissioner for a re-hearing after due notice to the parties. He shall duly consider whether all or any of the revisionists are entitled to the benefit of sub-section (4-F) referred to above. 7. This order will govern connected Reference Nos. 223 to 238 of 1974-75 District Gonda.