JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member - This is a second appeal against the decree dated January 31, 1972 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad confirming the decision of the Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Kanpur, dated June 18, 1969, in a suit under section 229-B 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. The respondent No. I, Ram Prakash, had filed a suit seeking a declaration of Sirdari rights in plot No. 9 in village Nawaiya alleging that one Sahadin was the tenant of the land, that during the life time of Sahadin the plaintiff's father Bali had acquired adverse possession and that his father had become Sirdar of the land by virtue of continuous adverse possession. The suit was contested by the Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur which claimed that the land has vested in it as the previous tenure-holder Sahadin had died without leaving an heir. The Nagar Mahapa-like admitted that the plaintiff's father and the plaintiff had unlawfully trespassed over the land but denied that they acquired any Sirdari rights by such trespass. The courts below have decreed the suit. The Nagar Mahapalika has come up in second appeal. 4. The grounds taken in the second appeal are that the courts below have erred to presume the death from the fictitious and illegal entry of possession of plaintiff-respondent's father Bali, ignoring all evidence of the parties regarding the time of death, secondly that the finding that Sahadin evidently died 13 years ago is perverse ; thirdly that the courts below have erred in taking the two periods of trespasser's possession and the finding that plaintiff-respondent had perfected his right by adverse possession is erroneous and fourthly, that the Khasra entries from 1361 F. onward being against rules carried no presumption and required no proof in rebuttal. 5. The record shows that Sahadin was the recorded tenure holder of the land. It is the common case of both the parties that Sahadin had died heir-less. It is also the common case of the parties that the respondent's father unlawfully trespassed over the land. The point for determination therefore, is whether the respondent or his father acquired Sirdari rights over the land by such unlawful trespass. 6. According to the plaint filed by the respondent the recorded tenure-holder Sahadin died in the year 1955. It is also the common case of the parties that the respondent's father unlawfully trespassed over the land. The point for determination therefore, is whether the respondent or his father acquired Sirdari rights over the land by such unlawful trespass. 6. According to the plaint filed by the respondent the recorded tenure-holder Sahadin died in the year 1955. According to the written statement of the Nagar Mahapalika, Sahadin died some times in 1966. The plaintiff-respondent did not produce any evidence of the date of death of Sahadin but even if Sahadin died in the year 1955 as alleged by the plaintiff-respondent it is uncontrovcrted that his death occurred after the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act had come into force. As he died heir less his holding vested in the Gaon Sabha (now Nagar Mahapalika) under sections 193 and 194 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. According to the entry in the Khasra of 1362 F. Bali, the father of the plaintiff-respondent trespassed over the land from 1360 to 1361 Fs. but Khasra of 1360 F. has not been produced and the trial court has recorded a finding that the plaintiff has been in possession since 1362 Fasli. 1362 F. would correspond with the year 1955. In other words trespass of the plaintiff-respondent's father being in the same year in which the recorded tenure holder died. Thus there would be no question of acquisition of Sirdari rights by the respondent father against the recorded tenure-holder. After the death of recorded tenure-holder the land is vested in the Gaon Sabha (now Nagar Mahapalika) and it has to be seen whether the plaintiff-respondent or his father have been able to acquire any rights by adverse possession against the Nagar Mahapalika. The learned counsel for the Nagar Mahapalika has referred to 1970 RD 304 in which it has been held that in fact there is no period of limitation provided for the Gaon Sabha for ejecting a trespasser and this would mean that a trespasser can never acquire rights under section 210 on Gaon Sabha land. This is now established law in view of the recent amendment. Thus the plaintiff-respondent cannot claim to have acquired Sirdari rights in the land by prescription and his status remain to be that of a trespasser who can be ejected by the Nagar Mahapalika any time. 7. This is now established law in view of the recent amendment. Thus the plaintiff-respondent cannot claim to have acquired Sirdari rights in the land by prescription and his status remain to be that of a trespasser who can be ejected by the Nagar Mahapalika any time. 7. The courts below have erred in law in decreeing the suit. I hereby allow the second appeal and set aside the impugned order of the courts below. The plaintiff-respondent's suit stands dismissed.