JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad recommending that the revision filed by Indrajeet against the order dated 29-6-1972 passed by the Assistant Collector, First Class, Chhibramau, District Farrukhabad, in a case under Rule 115 C of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. rules may be dismissed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record. 3. On the report of the Lekhpal to the effect that the revisionist had encroached upon on area of 292 sq. yds in plot no. 393 which was Banjar and was Gaon Sabha property by constructed a house in an unauthorised manner. The Assistant Collector, First Class issued notice in Z.A. Form 49-Ka. The revisionist had filed an objection to the effect that his house existed on the land in disputed since before the abolition of zamindari and that a bonafide question of title was involved. The learned Additional Collector First Class after making due enquiry held that the revisionist and made unauthorised encroachment over the land in disputed by putting up a thatch and ordered his ejectment along with payment of Rs. 150/- and Rs. 6/- as fees of the Gaon Sabha counsel. 4. The first ground argued before me is that according to the statement of the Lekhpal the house constructed by the revisionist stands over the land in dispute and as such the revenue court has no jurisdiction to order ejectment. It has also been pleaded that since a house admittedly stands over the land in disputed the plot ceases to be land within the definition of the word 'land' as given in section 3(14) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. I am unable to accept his contention. Section 3(14) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act reads as follows:- "Land" except in sections 109, 143 and 144 and Chapter VII means land held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry which includes pisciculture and poultry farming" 5. The present proceedings are unable section 122-B which falls under Chapter VII of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, as such, the restriction that only land used,held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry will come under the definition of land, does not apply for the purposes of Section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The present proceedings are unable section 122-B which falls under Chapter VII of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, as such, the restriction that only land used,held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry will come under the definition of land, does not apply for the purposes of Section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Action under section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act can be taken in respect of any kind of land vested in the Gaon Sabha. 6. Another plea taken is that whereas the Lekhpal admits the existence of a house over the plot in dispute, the finding of the courts below is that only thatched construction exists. A reading of the trial court's judgment shows that there is no real discrepancy. The revisions himself admits that he has constructed two rooms over the land in dispute which have a thatched roof. Thus the finding that a thatched construction has been built is not against the evidence or record. This construction may constitute a complete house or may not constitute a house depending upon the use to which it is put i.e. whether it is used for residence of human being or for the dwelling of the cattle or for keeping of fodder and other items. 7. It has also been argued that the notice issued was illegal as it had not been shown in the notice from which side of the dispute plot ejectment was being sought. This plea cannot be accepted. The notice clearly specifies the plot number and the area. The revisionist perfectly understood the areas as in his objection he had claimed that on this area his house existed from the time of the Zamindari. For further clarity the Lekhpal appeared as a witness and produced the site plan showing the exact area. Thus every thing possible has been done by the trial court to specify the area from which the revisionist is being ejected. 8. Lastly the question of bonafide title has been raised. This is a matter of finding of fact. On the evidence produced the trial court rightly came to the conclusion that during the consolidation proceedings the land in dispute has been entered as Banjar in C.H. Forms 41 and 45 and it is not open to the revisionist to raise any question of title. This is a matter of finding of fact. On the evidence produced the trial court rightly came to the conclusion that during the consolidation proceedings the land in dispute has been entered as Banjar in C.H. Forms 41 and 45 and it is not open to the revisionist to raise any question of title. It was incumbent upon him to raise the question of title before the consolidation authorities. 9. The trial court has rightly held the revisionist to be a trespasser and ordered his ejectment. There is no force in the revisions. 10. Agreeing with the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner, I hereby dismiss the revision.