JUDGMENT G.S. Sial, Member. - This is a reference made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, in a revision arising out of a case under section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, recommending that the revision be dismissed. 2. The facts of the cases are narrated in the orders of the courts below and are, therefore not being reiterated here. 3. The learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the Tahsildar has no authority to proceed with the case u/s 122-B Z.A. and L.R. Act as the Asstt. Collector Ist Class cannot act as Collector under the new amended Act from 1969. He referred to 1977 R.D. page 234 (F.B.) in support of his contention. Further he submitted that the period of limitation for taking action by the Gaon Sabha is 6 months from the date of wrongful occupation but in this case it is established that the application was moved after more than 4 years and therefore, no action can be taken by the Asstt. Collector. Even there is no order on the file to proceed in the matter suo moto and, therefore the proceedings initiated by the trial court are wholly without jurisdiction and illegal. He cited R.D. 1972 page 43(H.C.) 1971 (S.C.) page 1045 to contend that a notice to the party for taking suo moto action is necessary. Lastly, he submitted that since the Pradhan himself has admitted the possession of the revisionist over the disputed land from more than 25 years, a bona fide dispute of title is involved and no action can be taken in summary proceedings. He referred to 1975 R.D. page 149 and 1973 R.D. page 87 in support of his contention. He also pointed out that where old Sahan and Abadi exist a local inspection is necessary vide 1975 R.D. page 192. 4. The learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha referred to section 3(4) of the Z.A. and L.R. Act and stated that the Collector includes an Asstt. Collector Ist Class and hence the Tahsildar was empowered to initial the proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act. He referred to R.D. 1975 page 147 in this behalf. 4. The learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha referred to section 3(4) of the Z.A. and L.R. Act and stated that the Collector includes an Asstt. Collector Ist Class and hence the Tahsildar was empowered to initial the proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act. He referred to R.D. 1975 page 147 in this behalf. He argued that since the proceedings were initiated after making inquiry on the application of the Sabhapati it will be presumed that the proceedings were initiated suo moto and therefore the question of limitation of 6 months does not arise. He submitted that the trial court has rightly initiated the proceedings and ordered the ejectment of the revisionist from the Gaon Sabha land and no revisional interference is called for. 5. I have considered the arguments and gone through the record of the case. The main point in this case is that the Tahsildar in exercise of power as Asstt. Collector Ist Class could not as Collector in proceedings u/s 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. I am afraid, this contention is not well taken. The point has been decided by my predecessor Sri B.R. Vohra in R.D. 1975 page 147. The learned Member held that Tahsildar who was vested with power of Asstt. Collector 2st Class was entitled to take proceedings u/r 115-C to 115-E in terms of Government Notification no. 1498/R (III)-I-A-3587/59 dated July 25, 1960. This ruling is based on a Division Bench ruling of the Hon'ble Alld. High Court reproduced, in 1965 R.D. page 379. Thus the Tahsildar in this case was empowered to take proceedings u/s 122-B of the Act. The ruling quote by the learned counsel for the revisionist is applicable only to land revenue Act and not to be a case under Act U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 6. The next point taken by the learned counsel is that the Asstt. Collector could not issue notice unless he has passed an order that he is proceedings in the matter in the suo moto exercise of its powers. I am afraid that this argument is also not well taken. 6. The next point taken by the learned counsel is that the Asstt. Collector could not issue notice unless he has passed an order that he is proceedings in the matter in the suo moto exercise of its powers. I am afraid that this argument is also not well taken. Section 122-B (2) only says that where L.M.C. fails to take action, the Collector may on an application of the Chairman, Member or Secretary of the L.M.C. or no facts coming to this notice otherwise, take steps for the ejectment of the persons in wrongful occupation of the land. The section no where mentions that first an order for exercising suo moto powers should be passed and thereafter a notice can be issued. The only restriction imposed by the section is that the Collector will not be correct in exercising the powers in case he comes to the conclusion that the matter involves a bona fide question of title. This point has been clarified in 1973 R.D. page 87 where it has been observed that action is permissible only when the title of Gaon Sabha cannot exfacie be questioned, i.e when there is no bona fide dispute in respect of Gaon Sabha's title. Accordingly before the Collector can pass an order for eviction he must record a finding that the land had vested in the Gaon Sabha and that there was no bona fide dispute about the title of the Gaon Sabha. In this case the title of Gaon Sabha is not in question. The land is recorded as Gaon Sabha property and, therefore there is no exfacie case disputing the title of the Gaon Sabha Mere statement of Pradhan that the revisionist had been in possession for a long period will not bring into question the title of the Gaon Sabha. Accordingly I am of the view that the view taken by the courts below is correct and no interference is called for. Agreeing with the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner the revisions is rejected.