JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is a reference dated 21.10.1972 made by learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut recommending to reject the revision application against order dated 21.6.1979 passed by S.D.O. Budhana, District Muzaffarnagur under section 211-A of Act I of 1951 ordering ejectment of the applicant from the disputed land. 2. Kapoor Singh and Jabbar Singh had given applications against the applicants under Section 211-A of Act I of 1951 for their ejectment from plot no. 2076 area 7 biswas of village Kure Pargana and Tahsil Budhana, district Muzaffarnagar as members of the L.M.C. alleging that Smt. Hameli was the Bhumidhar of the land in suit who had died heir less and the property vested in the Gaon Sabha which took possession and that it was recorded Navin parti in the revenue papers; that the revisionist in collusion with the Pradhan Gram Sabha have illegally occupied the land in suit and were liable to ejectment. 3. The case was contested by revisionists on the grounds that they were in possession since about more than 27 years and had constructed houses in the life-time of Smt. Hameli whose rights were extinguished and the applicant revisionist had acquired Sirdari rights after abolition zamindari and were not liable to ejectment. 4. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the applicants and have perused the records. 5. It had been argued that section 211-A of Act I of 1951 has been deleted by U.P. Ordinance No. 1 of 1976 and by U.P. Act No. of 1976 and proceeding under section 122-B of Act I of 1951 alone could be taken after the amendment deleting section 211-A and as, a bonafide question of title exists the case should be remanded for proceeding according to the provisions of sub-section 4-B of Act I of 1951. Reliance has been placed on Abadijan and another v. Otermal, A.I.R. 1952 Vindhya Pradesh 39. Anant Gopal Sheorey v. The State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 915. It was also argued that the plea of the applicants is not barred by section 49 of the C.H. Act as entries in revenue records under section 27 of the C.H. Act is not final. Reliance has been placed on Jadgeo v. Lauhar & other, 1970 A.W.R. 532 (H.C.). 5.1. It was also argued that the plea of the applicants is not barred by section 49 of the C.H. Act as entries in revenue records under section 27 of the C.H. Act is not final. Reliance has been placed on Jadgeo v. Lauhar & other, 1970 A.W.R. 532 (H.C.). 5.1. Proceeding under section 211-A of Act I of 1951 was maintainable on application from the Chairman, Member of Secretary of the L.M.C or on facts coming to the notice otherwise to the Collector and the Tahsildar were given power of an Assistant Collector of the Ist Class by Notification No. U.P. 733/1-A-375-D59, May 1961 published in the Gazette part 1-A of May 27, 1961 and all Tahsildar were empowered with the power of the Collector. 6. Section 211-A has been omitted by U.P. Act No. of 1976. It has been held in Abadijan and another v. Otermal (supra) that pending litigation should be governed not by the procedural law but by the new law. In A.I.R. 1953 (S.C.) page 915 it has been held if by an Act of Parliament the mode of procedure is altered he has no other right than to proceed according to the altered mode. In other words a change in the law of procedure operates retrospective and unlike the like relating to vested right is not only prospective. 7. In the present case section 211-A which has been deleted by U.P.Act No. XXXV of 1976 has not been substituted by section 122-B of Act I of 1951. Section 122-B existed along with section 211-A in the Act, therefore, the ruling reported in A.I.R. 1952 (V.P.) page 39 is not applicable and consequently A.I.R. 1953 (S.C. page 915) is also not applicable. 8. Section 211-A provided for ejectment of persons occupying land without title and the power to proceed against the trespassers summarily was conferred upon the Collector section 212 was excepted which deals with the ejectment of persons from lands of public utility and action under section 212-A relate to public utility lands which are covered by section 211-A. On the other hand section 122-B and 211-A were enacted with the same purposes of the saving the Gaon Sabha land to certain extent these provisions are overlapping. But particularly speaking there is one distinctive feature which separates them. Section 122-B is meant to protect any property vested in Gaon Sabha or local authority. But particularly speaking there is one distinctive feature which separates them. Section 122-B is meant to protect any property vested in Gaon Sabha or local authority. By section 211-A it was provided supervisory power on the Gaon Sabha over the properties initially belonging to tenure-holders, therefore, these two provisions were provided in separate chapters of Act I of 1951. In Ramraj v. Board of Revenue, 1970 A.W.R. page 36 it was held by Hon'ble Satish Chandra, J. "In my opinion the provisions of Section 211-A will not apply Section 122-B directly applies to a property vested in Gaon Sabha whereas Sec. 211-A does not specifically do so. The finality clause in section 211-A is much mild than that of section 122-B". Thus it is clear that the arguments that as section 211-A has been repealed and has been substituted by section 122-B of Act I of 1951 has got no force and it is no correct to say that section 122-B is the new law which should be applied in place of repealed section 211-A of Act I of 1951. 9. The U.P. General Clauses Act as amended by U.P. Act 56 of 1975 by its section 6 provides for the effect of repeal which runs as follows:- "6-Effect of repeal where any Uttar Pradesh Act repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not- (a) revive any thing not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or (b)affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder or (c) affect any right privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed ; or (d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or (e) affect any remedy, or any investigation or legal proceeding commenced before the repealing Act shall have come into operation in respect of any such right, privilege obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid: AND any such remedy may be enforced and any such investigation or legal proceeding may be continued and conclude, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment imposed as if the repealed Act had not been passed". This sub-section (e) provides that the repeal of section 211-A shall not affect the proceeding commenced under section 211-A before the repealing Act came into force and the legal proceeding may be continued and concluded as if the repealed Act has not been passed, therefore, the proceeding started under section 211-A although that section having been repealed that proceeding will have to be concluded as if the section has not been repealed. 10. In the present case it has been established by evidence on record that the land in suit was bhumidhari land of Smt. Hameli who was so recorded during consolidation proceeding and it is also established Hameli died heirless and the land vested in the Gaon Sabha after her death and the applicants are trespassers, therefore, they were rightly ordered to be ejected from the land in suit. The argument that entries in the revenue records under section 27 of the C.H. Act is not final about abadi in it, has got no force because Hameli was admitted to be the tenant of the disputed land and was rightly recorded as bhumidhar. The plea of the applicants about their right was certainly barred under section 49 of the C.H. Act. The ruling reported in Jagdeo & another v. Lauhar and others, 1970 A.W.R. page 532 is not applicable to the present case because in the case abadi plot was wrongly recorded as an agricultural plot during consolidation proceeding but in the present case agricultural plot of Smt. Hameli was rightly recorded as her bhuidhari plot and she admittedly was its bhumidhar. 11. In view of the above there is no force in this revision and the recommendation is accepted, therefore revision application is hereby rejected with costs.