JUDGMENT J.S. Gupta, Member - These are four references made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, recommending that the revisions filed by Riaz Ahmad and others be allowed, and the order of the trial court set aside. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that proceedings for ejectment of Gorkha and others were initiated on the ground that they had wrongfully occupied Gaon Sabha land, and had caused damages to it. Gorkha and others filed objection, stating that the land in dispute was Qabristan, and did not vest in the Gaon Sabha under Section 117 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, that the property in dispute was looked after and managed by the Board of district Saharanpur on behalf of Central Board, Lucknow and that the Khokha had been constructed with their consent. The trial court after considering the evidence on record, arrived at the conclusion that the property did vest in the Gaon Sabha, and that Gorkha and others had taken unlawful possession of the property in dispute. It ordered the ejectment of Gorkha and others, and also directed them to pay certain amount as damages. Feeling aggrieved by this order, Riaz Ahmad and others filed four revisions before the learned Additional Commissioner, from which the present references have arisen. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. The learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that a bona fide dispute of title being involved in the case, the trial court acted illegally in ordering the ejectment of the revisionists in these proceedings. He stated that the main point for determination was whether the land in dispute was the property of the Gaon Sabha, or whether it was Waqf property. According to him, there was a registered Waqf in respect of the property in question, and the trial court was wrong in taking the view that the property did vest in the Gaon Sabha. He pleaded that the ruling of the Hon'ble High Court as reported in 1972 R.D. 172, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. He supported the reference made by the learned Additional Commissioner, and urged that the order of the trial court be quashed. 4. The learned counsel for the opposite party submitted in reply that the property, which was a graveyard, was the property of Gaon Sabha, and proceedings for ejectment were rightly started. He supported the reference made by the learned Additional Commissioner, and urged that the order of the trial court be quashed. 4. The learned counsel for the opposite party submitted in reply that the property, which was a graveyard, was the property of Gaon Sabha, and proceedings for ejectment were rightly started. He referred to 1965 A.W.R. 371, in which it was held by a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court as follows :- "Where at on time the property was Waqf property and hence it vested in God, that would not preclude an entry in the register prescribed by Clause (a) of Section 32 of the L.R. Act. Whether land belonged to a private person or vested in the Almighty, the land had to be mentioned in the register of proprietors. So even Waqf land will be covered by the definition of 'estate' given in clause (a) of Section 3 of the Act. Ch. IV of the Act provides for payment of compensation for the loss of rights of intermediaries. Section 69 provides for payment of compensation to Waqf, Trust or endowment. Section 69 gives an indication that even Waqf lost rights under the provisions of the Act. In view of the definition of the term 'estate' given in Section 3 of the Act, and the liability of the State Government to pay compensation for Waqf, it appears that even Waqf property vested in the State under Section 4 of the Act. There is no indication in the Act that Waqf property is exempted from the operation of Section 4 of the Act. On the contrary, there is specific provision for payment of compensation for Waqf property. It is, therefore, clear that Section 4 of the Act operates as regards Waqf property also." He also cited 1972 R.D. 172, in which it was held as follows :- "It appears that all the lands of public utility such as graveyards, cremation grounds, Mela land and other lands of public utility were only given in the management of the Gram Samaj for their upkeep." He referred to Sections 4 and 117 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. He referred to Section 69 of the Act also, which reads as under:- "Deposit of the compensation money with Bank or other authority in certain cases: (1) Where the person entitled to receive the compensation is a Waqf, trust or endowment, or a minor or a person suffering from some legal disability, or a limited owner, the compensation may, notwithstanding anything contained in any law, but subject to any general directions that the State Government may give, be deposited for and on behalf of the person, with such authority or Bank as may be prescribed.............." He submitted that the property in question vested in the Gaon Sabha, and the trial court rightly ordered the ejectment of Riaz Ahmad and others, who had taken illegal possession. He stated that the Gaon Sabha could not use the land for any purpose other than the one which is not in conformity with the purpose of the Waqf, but it will not mean that the Gaon Sabha could not eject those persons who had illegally occupied grave yards. He submitted that the possession of Riaz Ahmad and others started in 1378 Fasli, and they were liable to ejectment. He urged that the order of the trial court may be upheld. 5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsels for the parties, and have perused the record. The first point to be decided is whether the property in dispute is of Gaon Sabha or not. Under Section 4 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, the State Government may, by notification declare that all estates situate in Uttar Pradesh shall vest in the State and all such estates shall stand transferred to and vest in the State from the specified date. Even Waqf land would be covered by the definition of estate, as given in Section 3 (8) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Provision had been made in the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act itself for payment of compensation to a Waqf. The Hon'ble High Court also observed in the ruling quoted in 1972 R.D. 172 that while holding that the Gram Samaj would/be the owner of the property, the proper interpretation of the ownership should be that the Gaon Samaj should not use trees or the sale proceeds for any purpose other than the one which is not in conformity with the purpose of the Waqf. The circumstances of the present case reveal that the action started is one for eviction of these persons who have illegally occupied graveyards, which by no stretch of imagination can be construed to be a purpose not in conformity with the Waqf. From the ruling of the Hon'ble High Court, it is obvious that the Gaon Sabha has every right to manage the property of the graveyard, and that the use should be in conformity with Mo hammadan law, or the purpose of the Waqf. I am therefore inclined to hold that the property did vest in the Gaon Sabha, and proceedings initiated by it were maintainable. 6. The trial court, after considering the entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion that Riaz Ahmad and others had taken unlawful possession on Gaon Sabha land and were liable to ejectment. The finding of the trial court is based on an appreciation of the evidence on record and is not liable to be challenged in revision. 7. The learned Additional Commissioner fell into a legal error in taking the view that the Gaon Sabha had no authority to disturb the management of the Waqf property. The property had vested in the Gaon Sabha. There is no bona fide dispute of title involved in these proceedings and the court was correct in ordering the ejectment of the revisionists. I do not see any justification to interfere in these revisions. 8. Disagreeing with the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner, I dismiss the revision and uphold the order of the trial court. Costs on parties. 9. This order will also govern references Nos. 2048 to 2050 of 1974-75 Muzaffarnagar.