JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member - This is a revision against order dated 3-8-1977 passed by Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, dismissing the revision filed by the applicant Salig Ram against order dated 21-6-1977 passed by Tahsildar/Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Tahsil Orai, District Jalaun, in a case under section 122-B of Act 1 of 1951 ordering ejectment of the applicant and directing to pay damages amounting to Rs. 480/-. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are : that the Pradhan of village Orai, District Jalaun had reported that the applicant had trespassed over Gaon Sabha land measuring 10 feet X 7 feet by constructing a wooden shop above the Nala and had caused damages and loss to the Gaon Sabha of Rs. 20/- per month. 3. A notice was issued to the applicant who had filed objection that he was paying Tahbazari to the Gaon Sabha at the rate of 10 paise per day ; that the land in dispute was not 'land', therefore, proceeding under section 122- B of Act I of 1951 is not maintainable ; that he was a landless agricultural labourer ; that proceeding under section 122-B was not maintainable as consolidation operations were going on. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties including learned DGC (R), Jhansi and have gone through the record of the case. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant argued at first, that consolidation operation was going on, therefore, the revision and the proceeding under section 122-B of Act I of 1951 are liable to be abated under Section 5 of the C.H. Act. 6. The learned DGC (R) Sri P.N. Verma argued that the disputed land is a Nala and is not connected with agricultural purposes and is not land under section 3 (5) of the Consolidation Act, therefore, it cannot come under the preview of carvation of chaks, hence proceeding regarding it cannot be abated. Reliance has been placed on C.C.O. No. 291 for RD 1974, RD page 5 and 1973 RD page 204. Reliance has been placed on C.C.O. No. 291 for RD 1974, RD page 5 and 1973 RD page 204. It was also argued that the disputed land vested in the Gaon Sabha under section 117 of Act 1 of 1951 and was a land of public utility through which excess water of the locality drains out and being such it cannot be allotted to any tenure holder, therefore, consolidation operations have got no bearing on it hence this revision or the original proceeding cannot be abated. In reply it was argued where Notification under section 4 of the C.H. Act has been published regarding land of a certain area all proceedings regarding any land of that area has to be abated under section 5 of the C.H. Act.. 7. Section 3 (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act lays down that Consolidation means re-arrangement of holdings in a unit amongst several tenure holders in such a way as to make their respective holdings more compact. Explanation : For the purposes of the clause, holding shall not include the following : .............. (iii) land mentioned in section 132 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950............ It has been argued rightly that Nala through which rain water and excess water of the locality is drained away cannot be considered to be part of any holding and under consolidation operations it cannot be allotted to chak of any tenure-holder, therefore, to such land the consolidation operations do not apply. 8. Under section 3 (5) of the C.H. Act word 'land' means land comprising of a holding, for purpose connected with agriculture etc. In 1974 RD page 5 it was held that even where the use of holding is for purpose unconnected with agriculture, whether permitted under the Act or whether commenced before the enforcement of this Act, in either case that area which is put to a different use other than agriculture etc. would not be covered by the definition of the word 'land' and therefore, the provisions of the C.H. Act would not apply. In that case the area in question being used for the purpose of making bricks etc. for purpose unconnected with agriculture etc. Such an area would not be covered by the definition of the word 'land' hence the consolidation courts would have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties in respect thereto. 9. In that case the area in question being used for the purpose of making bricks etc. for purpose unconnected with agriculture etc. Such an area would not be covered by the definition of the word 'land' hence the consolidation courts would have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties in respect thereto. 9. In the present case it is admitted case of the parties that the disputed land is a Nala, through which rain water and excess water of the area flows. Such land is not covered by the definition of land given in section 3 (5) of the U.P.C.H. Act 1953. If the area does not come within the definition of 'land' under the U.P.C.H. Act, the Consolidation of Holdings Act does not operate over it and the Consolidation Courts have no jurisdiction to adjudicate about it. 10. Furthermore, where there is no dispute of title about such land which is not covered by definition of 'land' under the C.H. Act and such land has vested in the Gaon Sabha which is not to be given to any one in his chak, in my considered opinion section 5 of the C.H. Act will not operate. Therefore, this revision application or the proceeding under section 122-B cannot be abated under section 5 of the U.P.C.H. Act, 1953. 11. Where the ownership of Gaon Sabha land is not disputed and the primary relief is only for ejectment and damages and there is no dispute regarding the title of the Gaon Sabha and the land is not covered by the definition of 'land' as defined under section 3 (5) of the C.H. Act and such land is not covered by consolidation scheme i.e., by the meaning of consolidation as defined in section 3 (2) of C.H. Act, such proceeding either in trial court or in the revisional court shall not be abated under section 5 (2) of the C.H. Act. 12. As regards the merits of this revision application ; the applicant has applied that he has vacated the disputed land which has been confirmed by the Pradhan who has been identified by the learned DGC (R) Jhansi, therefore, in my considered opinion as the applicant has been paying Tahbazari and had vacated the disputed land, the order regarding damages should be set aside and the revision application regarding ejectment is liable to be dismissed. 13. 13. In view of the above, the revision application is partly allowed and the order regarding damages is set aside. The revision application is partly dismissed and the order regarding ejectment is confirmed.