JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member :- This a revision application against the order dated August 11, 1976 passed by Tahsildar/Assistant Collector, Baberu, district Banda in a case under Rule 115-D of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules ordering eviction of the applicant and to pay damages amounting to Rs. 840/- with the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division partly to allow the revision and to modify the order of the lower court regarding the amount of damages which should be reduced to Rs. 190.40 according to circle and prescribed rates in the Faslis of he trespass. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 3. Proceedings against the applicant were dropped for the land in question on April 26, 1971 for copy of judgment on the file of the lower court. The question involved is whether after the first proceedings were dropped as bona fide question of title was involved, the second proceeding is maintainable in view of the changed law. The revisionist was directed on November 28, 1975 in the subsequent proceeding in question to file a declaratory suit within a period of one month as the law then was in force per amendment of August 19, 1975. Now under section 122-B (4-B) by amendment Act 35 of 1976 this period has been raised to 3 months. Therefore, the learned Commissioner recommended that as the applicant was afforded time of one month to file declaratory suit for establishing his title which he failed, he is liable to ejectment in the present proceedings. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the second proceeding was barred as held in 1960 RD 210. Therefore, the order of the court below was liable to be quashed and it was the Gaon Sabha which ought to have filed the suit after the proceeding was dropped on April 26, 1971 and not the applicant as held in 1976 RD 124. 5. Therefore, the order of the court below was liable to be quashed and it was the Gaon Sabha which ought to have filed the suit after the proceeding was dropped on April 26, 1971 and not the applicant as held in 1976 RD 124. 5. It has been argued by the learned DGC (R) that the effect of dropping of the previous proceeding is only to this extent that a bona fide dispute of title exist and only this fact will operate either as res judicata or estoppel but in this case in view of the amendment in Section 122-B (4-B) that in cases of bona fide dispute of title, the required time shall be allowed for filing the suit for establishing title and the proceeding for that period shall be stayed and if that opportunity is not availed proceeding shall be restarted and required order shall be passed and it has been so done by the court below therefore, no illegality was committed. 6. In my considered opinion the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant have got force. If a proceeding was once dropped where a bona fide dispute existed as the law then was, then the second proceeding regarding the same land is barred by principle of res judicata and estoppel because starting of second proceeding will amount to review its own order which jurisdiction is not conferred to the court below. The reliance has been rightly placed on 1960 RD 210 by the learned counsel for the applicant. 7. The amendment made in Section 122-B (4-B) is applicable to the new proceedings. It does not entitle in any way starting second proceeding when the first proceeding was dropped. Therefore, when the proceeding itself is barred, the provision of this amended sub-Section (4-B) of Section 122-B cannot be made applicable in the second proceeding, therefore, the argument of the learned DGC (R) is not acceptable. 8. It does not entitle in any way starting second proceeding when the first proceeding was dropped. Therefore, when the proceeding itself is barred, the provision of this amended sub-Section (4-B) of Section 122-B cannot be made applicable in the second proceeding, therefore, the argument of the learned DGC (R) is not acceptable. 8. As the first proceeding was dropped it was the Gaon Sabha who ought to have filed a suit for declaration for ejectment as held in 1976 RD 124 and the applicant cannot be forced to take the burden of filing the suit for declaration, because once the proceeding was dropped against him and shelter cannot be taken by the Gaon Sabha under the amended sub-Section (4-B) of Section 122-B in such cases and second proceeding cannot be resorted to for taking the advantage of this amended sub-Section because subsequent proceedings are barred. 9. In view of the above the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner cannot be accepted and the revision application is a fit one for being allowed and the order of the court below is liable to be quashed for the reasons mentioned above. 10. In view of the above, I allow this application and set aside the order of the court below.