JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member - This is a revision against the order dated February 2, 1977 passed by the learned Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, dismissing revision of the applicant against the order dated September 30, 1978 passed by Tahsildar A.C. Ist Class, Jhansi Moth, district Jhansi in a case under Section 122-B of Act I of 1951, ordering ejectment of the applicant from the disputed plot. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 3. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that a bonafide dispute of title is involved in this case on account of the existence of about 24 years old construction and trees so the ejectment order should be set aside at least for the area covered by them. He referred 1977 R.D. page 352 and 1978 R.D. page 29. 4. In reply, the learned D.G.C. (R) submitted that the plot in dispute was reserved for public purpose during consolidation operations so whatever rights, title or interest, if any, revisionist had in the house or trees stood washed off and the allotment of land, vests trees and house free from all encumbrances under the U.P. C.H. Act. The definition of 'land' includes standing houses and trees also. There can be no dispute of bonafide title now over Gaon Sabha land specially in view of retrospective amendment in Section 210 of U.P. Act 1 of 1951. He relied upon 1979 R.D. 298, 1975 R.D. 168, 1977 R.D. 183, 1979 A.W.C. (R) and 1978 R.D. 84. 5. It is admitted case of both the parties that the consolidation had taken place in this village. The revisionist himself had filed relevant entry of C.H. Form 23 prepared by the consolidation authorities in which an area of 0-06 of plot No. 334 was excluded from the consolidation operation. The Lekhpal in his report as well as in the evidence claimed the disputed land 334 measuring 0-56 of the Gaon Sabha reserved for public utility namely for keeping Khalyan. Lekhpal stated that the revisionists trespassed and constructed boundary about 3 months ago while the evidence of other party show 24 years old house and trees. 6. The Lekhpal in his report as well as in the evidence claimed the disputed land 334 measuring 0-56 of the Gaon Sabha reserved for public utility namely for keeping Khalyan. Lekhpal stated that the revisionists trespassed and constructed boundary about 3 months ago while the evidence of other party show 24 years old house and trees. 6. Thus the real dispute in this case hinges upon two points namely (1) whether house and trees existed before or after consolidation (ii) Whether the benefit of Section 123(1) of U.P. Act I of 1971 is available to the revisionists. 7. The above two material considerations were altogether ignored by both the courts below. If the house was constructed prior of May 24, 1971 on Gaon Sabha land other than a land reserved for public utility, the persons belonging to class mentioned in Section 122-C (2) of U.P. Act 1 of 1951 have been given such land by the legislature on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed under Section 123(1) of the said Act. The terms and conditions have been prescribed in Rule 115-R and Rule T of Z.A. and L.R. Rules. Thus in such a case the occupation of the land otherwise than in accordance with law was legalised by the legislature from May 24, 1971 when Sec. 122 was incorporated vide U.P. Amendment Act No. 21 of 1971 and the site of the house so constructed on the land (other than a land of public utility) stood settled with the owner of the house himself. 8. Here, in the proceedings 122-B, the Collector has not been given power to decide title himself but he has to see whether the bona fide dispute of title exists or not. Bona fide means genuine or in good faith. It is anti-thesis of mala fide. In other words the person who wants to establish a bona fide dispute must not be inspired by an oblique motive. So the Collector would always weigh whether this plea is frivolous or genuine. What quantum of evidence will suffice to establish a bona fide dispute of title depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is mixed question of law and fact. So the Collector would always weigh whether this plea is frivolous or genuine. What quantum of evidence will suffice to establish a bona fide dispute of title depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is mixed question of law and fact. Whether the bona fide dispute to title is established the provisions of the sub-section (4-B) of Section 122-B of U.P. Act I of 1951 must be adhered to and the direction to file a suit within 3 months ought to be given to get a decision of competent court and then to follow subsequent procedure provided in sub-section 4-DD of the same section. 9. In the instant case bona fide dispute of title prima facie exists but it is subject to examination of the impact of the intervening consolidation operation to know whether the benefit grated by Section 123 (1) stood washed off or not. If so, upon how much area? 10. Likewise, while considering impact of the consolidation operation, it would be examined whether the land reserved for public use was transferred along with the trees and valuation of the trees paid to the owner. 11. The trial court should also have made a local inspection of the plot in dispute to ascertain and demarcate the area covered by the trees and the house including boundary wall. It is still necessary to determine the dispute completely and finally with reference to a site plan which may be prepared in the local inspection. 12. In view of the above, this revision application is liable to be allowed and the case needs to be remanded for a fresh disposal after giving parties an opportunity to produce evidence if they so like. Consequently, the revision application is allowed, the order of the trial court is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial court for a fresh decision according to law in the light of the directions made above.