JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a second appeal against the order and decree dated June 7, 1972 passed by Shri O.P. Sharma, Additional Commissioner Rohilkhand Division, Bareilly, in appeal No. 173 of 1970, against the order and decree of Assistant Collector Ist law for the time being in force, and - Class, Bareilly, dated March 30, 1970, in a case under Section 209 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record. 3. Rani Prem Kunwar filed a suit under Section 209 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act against Jagdish Prasad and others with the allegation that her late husband Raja Shyam Mohan Nath Misra was formerly the Jagidar Lambardar of village Salehnagar Nawadia and that he had let out the suit land to her at an annual rent of Rs. 325/- vide registered Patta dated August 2, 1951. With the abolition of Zamindari, she became Sirdar of the Land and was recognized as such as the State of U.P. In 1361 F., the defendants, Jagdish Prasad and Sita Ram, asserted that the village Gram Samaj had let out the land to them, and they dispossessed her from the land. She prayed for the ejectment of the defendants as trespassers. Subsequently, she got the plaint amendment to the extent that she had already been granted the relief of possession by the civil court and only prayed for damages in the present suit. The defendants contested the suit by claiming that the land, which was previously Banjar had been let out to them by the Gram Samaj. Both the courts below have decreed the suit. Jagdish Prasad has now come up in second appeal and impleaded the other defendant, Sita Ram, as a proforma respondent. 4. The first ground taken in the second appeal is that the suit for damages alone under Section 209 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act was not entertainable in the revenue court. 5. At the time of filing of the suit Section 209 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act stood as follows. 4. The first ground taken in the second appeal is that the suit for damages alone under Section 209 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act was not entertainable in the revenue court. 5. At the time of filing of the suit Section 209 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act stood as follows. "Section 209 - Ejectment of persons occupying land without title; (1) A person taking or retaining possession of land otherwise than in accordance with the provision of the force, and- (a) where the land forms part of the holding of a Bhumidhar, Sirdar or Asami without the consent of such Bhumidahr, Sirdar or Asami, (b) where the land does not form part of the holding of a Bhumidahr, Sirdar or Asami without the consent of the Gaon Sabha, shall be liable to ejectment on the suit, in cases referred to in clause (a) above, of the Bhumidahr, Sirdar or Asami concerned, and in case referred to in clause (b) above, of the Gaon Sabha (....) and shall also be liable to pay damages. (2) To every suit relating to a land referred to in clause (a) above, of the Bhumidhar, Sirdar or Asami concerned, and in case referred to in clause (b) above, of the Gaon Sabha (....) the State Government shall also be impleaded as a necessary party." The working of section makes it clear that a suit under Section 209 is maintainable only against a person taking or retaining possession of land otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the law. Thus, if a trespasser ceases to retain possession of the land, suit under Section 209 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act is no longer maintainable against him. In the present case, it is observed that in civil suit no No. 24 of 1955 the Civil Judge Bareilly had decreed the suit for possession in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, Rani Prem Kunwar. Since then the defendants are no longer in possession of the land as trespassers or otherwise. Thus, a suit under Section 209 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act as no longer maintainable. Ejectment is the primary relief in a suit under Section 209. Damage is only an ancillary relief and cannot take the place of the main relief. The present suit was thus no longer maintainable after the amendment of the plaint. 6. Thus, a suit under Section 209 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act as no longer maintainable. Ejectment is the primary relief in a suit under Section 209. Damage is only an ancillary relief and cannot take the place of the main relief. The present suit was thus no longer maintainable after the amendment of the plaint. 6. Another plea taken in the second appeal is that the suit was defective as the Gaon Sabha, which was a necessary party, had not been impleaded. This plea cannot be accepted. The Gaon Sabha is not a necessary party in a suit under Section 209 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. Only the State Government is a necessary party and it had duly been impleaded. 7. Yet another plea is that the suit as to be abated under the provisions of the U.P. C.H. Act. For this purpose the learned counsel for the appellant has cited 1968 R.D. 83, 1970 R.D. 240 and 1970 R.D. 295. This plea is also not correct. If the suit as maintainable under the law, it would have been subject to abatement under Section 5 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act once notification under Section 4(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act was issued but as seen above, the suit being for damages alone was not maintainable at all. 8. The courts below have erred in law in decreeing the suit for damages alone. I hereby allow the second appeal and set aside the judgments of the courts below. The suit for damages alone stands dismissed as being not maintainable.