JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by the Additional Commissioner Lucknow Division recommending that the revision filed by Kanhaiya Lal against the order of the sub divisional Officer, district Sitapur dated 31-12-1973 in proceedings under rule 115-C U.P.Z.A and L.R. Rules may be party allowed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. On the basis of the report of the Lekhpal, a notice in Z.A. Form 49-Ka was issued to the revisionist Kanhaiya Lal alleging that he had trespassed over certain Gaon Sabha land by putting up a vegetable shop under a tin-shed. The revisionist filed a written statement on 17-1-1973 to the effect that his pucca vegetable shop existed on the spot for the last twenty-five years in which he had been conducting whole-sale business in vegetable and that he had obtained an electric connecting in the shop since 1967-68. The trial court holding the revisionist to be a trespasser has ordered his ejectment alongwith payment of Rs. 500 as damages. 4. The grounds taken in the revision are, firstly that the entire proceedings were without jurisdiction, secondly, that there being a bonafide dispute as to title, no order under rule 115-D could be passed, thirdly that the construction is in the nature of a permanent structure and the land ceased to be 'land' and is Abadi land, and as such the proceedings were without jurisdiction, fourthly, that from the evidence on record it was proved that the shop in question was in existence from before the abolition of zamindari and as such provisions of rule 115-C could not have been invoked and lastly, that trial court erred in law in overlooking the provisions of Section 123 of the U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act by virtue of which the land was to be settled with the applicant. 5. The main ground which has substance is the ground that the shop in question has been in existence from before the abolition of zamindari. The revisionist and produced over-whelming oral and documentary evidence to this effect. The evidence of the revisionist consisted of three witness including himself Chhotey Lal and Mulloo who were not cross examined at all. 5. The main ground which has substance is the ground that the shop in question has been in existence from before the abolition of zamindari. The revisionist and produced over-whelming oral and documentary evidence to this effect. The evidence of the revisionist consisted of three witness including himself Chhotey Lal and Mulloo who were not cross examined at all. He also filed three receipts, one dated 15-11-1953, the other dated 8-7-1971 and third dated 22-9-1973 to show that the Gaon Sabha had realized the fee for his vegetable shop for the years 1950-51, and 1951-52, the years 1960 onwards and the year 1970-71. As against this, the only evidence on behalf of the Gaon Sabha consisted of the statement of the Lekhpal. Neither the Pradhan nor any other resident of the village has been produced to dispute the statement of the revisionist. It is thus fully established from the evidence that the revisionist has been keeping his vegetable shop on the spot since before the abolition of Zamindari and that after the Gaon Sabha came into existence, the Gaon Sabha came into existence, the Gaon Sabha gave the license for the same to the revisionist by realising the fee from year to year. Even if the land belongs to the Gaon Sabha, no action under Section 122-B or rule 115-C could be taken in such a case, unless the licence is revoked by the Gaon Sabha. Even then, before doing so, the Gaon Sabha will have also to take into account the effects of the provisions of the Section 123, U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act. The order of the trial court is clearly without jurisdiction. 6. Disagreeing with the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner, I hereby allow the revision and set aside the impugned order.