JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by Sri Saiyid Husain, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad recommending that the revision against the order dated March 30, 1972 passed by the Tehsildar, Bikapur, district Faizabad in Case No. 62/262 under Section 122-B, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, may be rejected. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The Lekhpal reported that Smt. Kusum Devi had trespassed over plot No. 800, area 8 dhurs, which was Gaon Sabha property. The trial court decided to intimate proceedings under Section 122-B, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act on the basis of this report. Smt. Kusum Devi filed an objection to the effect that this plot was a part of the plots Nos. 801 and 858 which was held to be Sirdari of her mother Smt. Parvati during consolidation proceedings. Thereafter, Smt. Parvati had obtained Bhumidhari Sanad in respect of this land and thereafter had executed a sale deed for the plot in dispute in her favour. She claimed that a bona fide question of title was involved and proceedings under Section 122-B were not maintainable. The trial court holding the revisionist to be a trespasser has ordered her ejectment. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that in the present case proceedings under Section 122-B, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act could not be initiated and only a suit under Section 209, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was maintainable before the competent Court of law. 5. I find that the Lekhpal had appeared as a witness on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. The Lekhpal had stated that the Gaon Sabha had executed a leases deed in respect of the plot in dispute in favour of one Ram Asre, that the lease had received the approval of the Sub-Divisional Officer and had thereafter been registered and a mutation case for mutating the name of Ram Asrey was going on. The only evidence produced on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, apart from the statement of the Lekhpal, is the extract of the Khasra which records the revisionist to be in possession. 6. The only evidence produced on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, apart from the statement of the Lekhpal, is the extract of the Khasra which records the revisionist to be in possession. 6. We may here consider the scope of Section 122-B. Section 122-A states that the Land Management Committee shall be charged for and on behalf of Gaon Sabha with the general superintendence, management, preservation and control of all the land, forest within village boundaries, trees (other than trees in a holding grove or Abadi), fisheries, tanks, ponds, water channels, pathways, Abadi sites and Hats, Bazars and Meals, vested in the Gaon Sabha under Section 117. Sub-section (1) of Section 122-B deals with the power of the Land Management to take steps to recover compensation for damage to or misappropriation of the property and for the recovery of possession of the land together with damages caused by wrongful occupation, of the land vested in the Gaon Sabha under the provisions of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 122-B reads as follows: "(2) Whether the Land Management Committee or the local authority fails to take action in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) within a period of six months from the date of wrongful occupation, and one month from the date of damage or misappropriation, the Collector may, except in a case involving a bona fide question of title, on an application of the Chairman, Member or Secretary of the Land Management Committee or the local authority as the case may be, or on facts coming to his notice otherwise, take step for the ejectment of the person in wrongful occupation of the land and for recovery of compensation for wrongful occupation of the land and for damage to or misappropriation of the property." Thus, it is clear that Section 122-B has application only to land or property vested in the Gaon Sabha. It has no application to land included in the holding of any person. 7. Under Section 195 of the Act, the Land Management Committee with the previous approval of the Assistant Collector Incharge of the Sub-Division has the right to admit any person as Sirdar to any land vested in the Gaon Sabha under Section 117. Under Section 197, the Land Management Committee can similarly admit any person as Asami of such land. After a person as Asami of such land. Under Section 197, the Land Management Committee can similarly admit any person as Asami of such land. After a person as Asami of such land. After a person has been admitted either as Sirdar or Asami under Section 195 or 197, the Gaon Sabha is divested of the land which now becomes part of the holding of the allottee's. Thus, proceedings under Section 122-B cannot be taken in respect of such land either by the Land Management Committee or the Collector. If such land is wrongfully occupied by any person without title, the remedy of the aggrieved person lies by way of filing a suit under Sec. 209. Proceedings under Section 122-B are, however, not, maintainable. Thus, the proceedings taken by the learned Tehsildar in the present case are without jurisdiction. 8. I, therefore, allow this revision and set aside the impugned order.