JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member - This is a reference made by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, recommending that the revision filed by Cheda Singh against the order dated December 1, 1972 passed by the Tahsildar Akbarpur, district Kanpur in a case under section 122-B, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act may be rejected. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have gone through the record. 3. The facts of the case are as follows : The Sub - Divisional Magistrate, Akbarpur had taken proceedings under section 145, CrPC with regard to plot No. 558, area 3 Biswa situated in village Kosam on account of imminent apprehension of breach of peace between two private parties. On the same day, he passed an order that action be taken against the revisionist who was one of the parties under Rule 115-D. The revisionist filed an objection to the effect that Cheda Singh alone was in possession of the land from before abolition of Zamindari and was using it for tying his cattle and for other allied purposes. Thereafter the learned Tahsildar has passed the impugned order ejecting the revisionist Cheda Singh as a trespasser and imposing Rs. 150/- as damages. This order has been challenged in the present revision. 4. The grounds taken in the revision are, firstly, that the procedure adopted by the learned Assistant Collector is highly irregular and calls for revisional interference ; secondly, that the revisionist's possession of the disputed land prior to the date of vesting is fully proved from the evidence on record and a bona fide question of title was involved ; thirdly, that proper notices were not given to the revisionist nor was he given sufficient opportunity to prove his case ; fourthly, that there was no evidence on behalf of the Gaon Sabha and the trial court has acted illegally in relying on inadmissible evidence, and lastly that the amount of damage awarded by the trial court is without any basis and is excessive. 5. These grounds are substantiated from the record. It is observed that the dispute arose between two private parties and the Gaon Sabha was nowhere in the picture. Though the case is headed Gaon Sabha v. Cheda Singh, in fact no notice was ever issued to the Gaon Sabha and it has not been represented. 5. These grounds are substantiated from the record. It is observed that the dispute arose between two private parties and the Gaon Sabha was nowhere in the picture. Though the case is headed Gaon Sabha v. Cheda Singh, in fact no notice was ever issued to the Gaon Sabha and it has not been represented. No evidence whatsoever has been produced on behalf of the Gaon Sabha that the land in question was Gaon Sabha property. The oral witnesses which include Budhai, one of the members of the Gaon Sabha, says that the revisionist was in possession over the land from many years before the abolition of Zamindari. Even the Lekhpal who has made the report admits that plot No. 358, area 3 Biswa is recorded as Abadi in C.H. Form 2. He also admits that some persons including the Pradhan told him that the revisionist's possession over the land was old. He admits that he does not know whether the revisionist was in possession from before the abolition of Zamindari. 6. The learned Assistant Collector seems to have acted under a misapprehension that Abadi is Gaon Sabha property. The legal position is that Abadi is not Gaon Sabha property at all. Under section 9 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, all wells, trees and the buildings in the Abadi with the area appurtenant thereto shall be deemed to be resettled with the existing owner or occupier by the State Government. Section 117 of the Act specifies the property which shall vest in the Gaon Sabha. This merely included 'Abadi sites' i.e. 'vacant land in an Abadi' and does not include land in the Abadi site which is occupied by a well or a building or is appurtenant thereto. The learned Additional Commissioner has wrongly stated that the land in question is recorded as Talab in C.H. Form 2. The correct position is that in column 6 of the form, the land is recorded as Talab, but in column 16 which indicate the correct position at the spot, it is recorded as Abadi, and the Lekhpal of the village has quite categorically stated that the land is Abadi. He has further confirmed the easementary rights of tying cattle etc. exercised by the revisionist over this land. 7. The entire proceedings are thus without jurisdiction. The result is that I hereby allow the revision and set aside the impugned order.