JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is a second appeal against the Judgment and decree dated June 20, 1974 passed by Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division dismissing the appeal against Judgment and decree dated June 12, 1972 passed by Judicial Officer (Revenue) Banda dismissing the plaintiff's suit. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that Bisheshwar filed the suit for declaration of Sirdari rights in respect of plots area 8 Bigha 17 Biswa situate in village Khajuri Bangar, Pargana and District Banda with the allegations that he had been in possession since before Abolition of Zamindari and has acquired Sirdari rights by adverse possession and the Gaon Sabha has no concern. The trial court dismissed the suit on the basis of the evidence on record. The appellate court confirmed that sic. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned D.G.C. (R) Jhansi and have perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant acquired rights by prescription as he was in possession prior to the date of vesting. He relied upon the oral evidence of Bisheshwar plaintiff and Ram Narain. He further argued that the appellant is entitled to declared Sirdar on the basis of the adverse possession under Section 210 as amended by U.P. Land Laws Amendment Act No. VII of 1977 which impliedly repealed the effect of the amendment made by the Land Laws Amendment Act No. 35 of 1976 regarding S. 210 of Z.A. & L.R. Act. He relied on the ruling reported in State v. Ram Bhati, 1979 R.D. 217. In reply, the learned D.G.C. (R) submitted that the oral evidence of the plaintiff was not believed by the trial court as well as first appellate court, as such the findings of fact are binding and they cannot be questioned at this stage. He further submitted that the view taken by the Board in 1979 R.D. page 217 is no more a good law in view of the High Court's pronouncement on the subject reported in Chatar Singh v. Sahayak Sanchalak, Chakbandi, U.P. Lucknow camp at Meerut and others, 1979 A.W.C. 398. He also referred to the view taken by Sri P.C. Saxena, Member, Board of Revenue in Toti v. Gaon Sabha, 1978 A.W.C. (R) 89, and submitted that it should be maintained. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced by both the counsels. He also referred to the view taken by Sri P.C. Saxena, Member, Board of Revenue in Toti v. Gaon Sabha, 1978 A.W.C. (R) 89, and submitted that it should be maintained. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced by both the counsels. The documentary evidence produced on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant constitute of the extract of Khatauni 1377 to 1379 Fasli wherein the possession recorded on plot No. 173/1 stated from 1373 Fasli and was recorded in Ziman 4, Plot No. 228 was recorded in Zeman 4 from 1368 Fasli plot No. 59/2, 137, 138, 220 were recorded from 1373 Fasli and plot No. 214/1, 263 were recorded as Banjar. Apart from this Khatauni be also filed Khasra of 1377 Fasli. State of U.P. in its written statement had denied the possession of the plaintiff as asserted by him. The plaintiff failed to produce any documentary evidence prior to abolition of Zamindari. In the light of the above documentary evidence, the lower courts were justified in disbelieving the oral evidence produced on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant. The first appellate court has given a clear finding that the possession of the plaintiff started from 1363 Fasli for the first time and the suit was filed in 1378 Fasli so the plaintiff did not acquire Sirdari rights by adverse possession till the date of the suit. This finding of fact is based on the appreciation of evidence it is not liable to be challenged at this stage. 6. The next point regarding the interpretation of the amendment made in respect of Section 210 by U.P. Act No. 35 of 1976 and U.P. Act No. 49 of 1977 needs consideration in view of the conflicting views of learned Member Sri P.C. Saxena, reported in 1978 A.W.C. (R) page 89 and learned Member Sri J.S. Gupta reported in 1979 R.D. at page 217. These two views are conflicting. It appears that the view expressed in ruling 1978 A.W.C. (R) page 89 was not brought to the notice of learned Member Sri J.S. Gupta. 7. In U.P. Act No. 35 of 1976, Section 15 provided an amendment in respect of Section 210. It reads as under: "15. For Section 210 of the principal Act, the following section shall be substituted and be deemed always to have been substituted, namely:- "210. 7. In U.P. Act No. 35 of 1976, Section 15 provided an amendment in respect of Section 210. It reads as under: "15. For Section 210 of the principal Act, the following section shall be substituted and be deemed always to have been substituted, namely:- "210. If a suit for eviction from any land under Section 210 is not instituted by a Bhumidhar, Sirdar or Asami, or decree for eviction obtained in any such suit is not executed by him, within the period of limitation provided for the institution of such suit for the execution of such decree, as the case may be, the person taking or retaining possession shall- (i) Where the land forms part of the holding of a Bhumidhar or Sirdar, become a Sirdar of such land, and the rights, title and interest of an Asami, if any, in such land shall be extinguished; (ii) Where the land forms part of the holding of an Asami, on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, become an Asami thereof holding from year to year." The subsequent enactment of U.P. Act No. 8 of 1977 again made an amendment in respect of Section 210. In Section 49 of Act No. 8 of 1977 Section 210 was substituted as follows:- "Consequences of failure to file suit under Section 209:- If a suit for eviction from any land under Section 209 is not instituted by a Bhumidhar or Asami, or a decree for eviction obtained in any such suit is not executed within the period of limitation provided for institution of such suit or the execution of such decree, as the case may be, the person taking or retaining possession shall- (a) Where the land forms part of the holding of a Bhumidhar with transferable rights, become a Bhumidhar with transferable rights, of such land the rights, title and interest of an Asami, if any, in such land shall be extinguished; (b) Where the land forms part of the holding of a Bhumidhar with nontransferable rights, become a Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights, and the rights, title and interest of an Asami, if any, in such land shall be extinguished; (c) Where the land forms part of the holding of an Asami on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, become an Asami of the holding from year to year." A close observation of these two amendments would reveal that the Section 15 of U.P. Act 35 of 1976 made the amendment of Section 210 with retrospective effect. It means the original section as it stood prior to amended Section 210 was substituted and deemed to have been substituted on the date of the enforcement of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act No. 1 of 1951. It means this section as amended by Section 15 was on July 1, 1952 when the U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 came into force. This means that the amended Section 210 become the part of the original Act. Subsequent amendment made by U.P. Act No. 8 of 1977 did not mention any thing about this retrospectivity of Section 210. There is no amendment of repeal of Section 15 of U.P. Act No. 35 of 1976 which provided for the retrospective amendment of Section 210. Meaning thereby the retrospective amendment made by U.P. Act No. 35 of 1976 continued and was not affected by the amendment made by Section 49 of U.P. Act No. 8 of 1977. There is no amendment of repeal of Section 15 of U.P. Act No. 35 of 1976 which provided for the retrospective amendment of Section 210. Meaning thereby the retrospective amendment made by U.P. Act No. 35 of 1976 continued and was not affected by the amendment made by Section 49 of U.P. Act No. 8 of 1977. It may be pointed out that the purpose of U.P. Act No. 8 of 1977 was to abolish the existing Sirdari rights and to give Bhumidhari with non-transferable rights to the persons who had acquired title by prescription on the land forming part of the Bhumidhar. There was no mention in both these amendments that title by prescription on Gaon Sabha's land shall accrue. This subsequent amendment of Section 210 confined itself to the trespassers over the land of a Bhumidhar and not on the land of Gaon Sabha. This amendment did not touch anything which was substituted with retrospective effect by U.P. Act No. 35 of 1976 regarding Gaon Sabha's land. The observation of the Hon'ble Member Sri J.S. Gupta regarding Section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act (Central Act) is fallacious because a bare reading of Section 210 as amended by Act No. 8 of 1977 no where mentions Gaon Sabha's land except in subsection (c) which gives Asami rights from year to year on the land of Asami of Gaon Sabha and not Bhumidhari with non-transferable rights. The General Clauses Act (Central) has no bearing and relevance because there is U.P. General Clauses Act and Section 6(c)(i) as amended by U.P. Act No. 54 of 1975 is as under:- "6(c)(i) Repeal or expiration of law making textual amendments in other laws - (1) Except as provided by sub-section (2) where any Uttar Pradesh Act amends the text of any Uttar Pradesh Act or Regulation by the express omission, insertion or substitution of any matter, and the amending enactment is subsequently repealed, the repeal shall not affect the continuance of any such amendment made by the enactment so repealed and in operation at the time of such repeal." In view of this local amendment made by U.P. Act No. 54 of 1975 in Section 6(c), the affect of Section 15 of U.P. Act No. 35 of 1976 was not taken away it continues in its operation even if it be accepted for the sake of argument that subsequent amendment made by U.P. Act 8 of 1977 impliedly repealed it. In any considered opinion the amendment made by U.P. Act No. 8 1977 did not affect or amend Section 15 of U.P. Act No. 35 of 1976 which provided retrospective operation of Section 210. The object of subsequent amendment made by U.P. Act 8 of 1977 in Section 210 was only to substitute Bhumidhar with nontransferable rights in place of sirdar. 8. The view taken by me finds support by the latest decision of the Hon'ble High Court reported in Chatar Singh v. Sahayak Sanchalak Chakbandi (supra) in which it was held that no sirdar rights would be acquired in view of the provisions of Section 15 of Act No. 35 of 1976 and case of such person will not stand on a better footing due to provisions of Section 49 of U.P. Act No. 18 of 1977. It may be remarked here that as there were conflicting views of the two Members of the Board as reported in 1978 A.W.C. (R) page 89 and 1979 R.D. page 217, normally the matter ought to have been referred to larger bench but in view of the authoritative decision of the Hon'ble High Court which is binding on the Board no reference to a larger bench is required. 9. In view of the above, the appeal has no force and it is hereby dismissed with costs.