JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is a revision against the order dated June 29, 1977 passed by the Tahsildar/A.C., Ist Class, Baberu, district Banda in a case under Section 122-B of Act I of 1951 ordering ejectment and imposing damages against applicant. 2. The learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, by his order dated December 17, 1977 has recommended to set aside the order of the lower court and to remand the case with the direction that it should be decided after decision of the declaratory suit filed on July 1, 1976 filed within a period of three months of the order of the trial court. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 4. The trial court had ordered the applicant on April 15, 1976 to file declaratory suit within a month from the date of that order. The applicant did not file the suit within that period then the order in question was passed on June 29, 1977. 5. It was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that a previous proceeding was dropped against the applicant on September 30, 1970, therefore, fresh proceeding was not maintainable. Reliance has been placed on Balak Ram v. Gaon Samaj, 1960 R.D. 210 and it was further argued that at worst the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner should be accepted because the applicant had filed declaratory suit on July 1, 1976 within three months of the order of the trial court dated April 17, 1976 and the trial court had wrongly given only one month time for filing the suit. 6. It was argued in reply by the learned D.G.C. (R.), Jhansi that the order dated April 15, 1976 was passed before the amendment of Section 122-B (4-B) of Act I of 1951 by amending Act No. 35 of 1975 which came into force on June 15, 1976 providing three months period for filing the suit prior to which the period prescribed was only one month. Therefore the order of the trial court providing one month time for filing the suit was legally correct. It was further argued that Balak Ram v. Gaon Samaj (supra) is not applicable to the present case as by dropping the previous proceeding not deciding the matter finally the starting of fresh proceeding is not barred by principle of res judicata. Therefore the order of the trial court providing one month time for filing the suit was legally correct. It was further argued that Balak Ram v. Gaon Samaj (supra) is not applicable to the present case as by dropping the previous proceeding not deciding the matter finally the starting of fresh proceeding is not barred by principle of res judicata. Reliance has been placed on Ramgovinda Lal and others v. Smt. N. Bhagta Bala Dassi etc., A.I.R. 1971 (S.C.) 664. 7. The argument of the learned D.G.C. (R.) is correct that before June 15, 1976 when the amending Act No. 35 of 1976 came into force and 3 months period was prescribed under Section 122-B(4-B) the period was one month only. Therefore the order dated April 15, 1976 giving one month time for filing the suit to the applicant was legally correct. 8. The applicant did not file the suit within one month from April 15, 1976. He filed the suit on July 1, 1976 and did not file its copy even on June 29, 1977 and filed the copy of the plaint before the learned Additional Commissioner on September 26, 1979. Therefore he did not comply with the provisions of Section 122-B(4-B) of Act I of 1951 prevailing on April 15, 1976. The recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner is, therefore, not acceptable and the order passed under sub-section (4-DD) of Section 122-B of Act I of 1951 passed by the trial court of June 29, 1977 was justified. 9. The ruling reported in Balak Ram v. Gaon Samaj (supra) is not applicable to the present case because in that case the predecessor Tahsildar had dropped the proceeding holding that no encroachment was committed by the petitioner. Therefore the view taken in that case by the learned Hon'ble Member was justified wherein it was held that 'Where it was held by the Predecessor of a Tahsildar that no encroachment was committed by a person, the successor Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to start fresh proceedings on the same facts. It has open to the Gaon Samaj to seek its remedy by a regular suit'. 10. In the present case there is no such previous order that the applicant had not committed trespass over the Gaon Sabha land, therefore, the said ruling is not applicable. 11. It has open to the Gaon Samaj to seek its remedy by a regular suit'. 10. In the present case there is no such previous order that the applicant had not committed trespass over the Gaon Sabha land, therefore, the said ruling is not applicable. 11. The fresh proceeding is not barred on the principles of res judicata of quasi res judicata because as held in Ramgovinda Lal and others v. Smt. N. Bhagta Bala Dassi etc. (supra): "The test of res judicata is the identity of title in the two litigation's and not the identity of the actual property involved in the two cases but the previous decision must be one on a title in respect of which a dispute has been raised and which dispute was heard and finally decided by the court. Once the decision on question of title becomes final it operates as res judicata even if the value of the subject matter on which the former decision was pronounced was comparatively very trifling. When the decision was given by the trial court after contest it operated as res judicata even if appeal therefrom might have been dismissed on some preliminary grounds like limitation". In the present case as by dropping the previous proceeding the matter was not 'heard and finally decided on merits', therefore, the fresh proceeding is not barred by principles of res judicata or quasi res judicata. 12. In view of the above, the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner cannot be legally accepted and the revision application is liable to be dismissed which is hereby dismissed with costs.