JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a second appeal against the judgment dated 30-7-74 passed by Sri Kanhaiya Lal, Additional Commissioner. Allahabad Division, Allahabad dismissing the first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 5-11-1973 passed by the Assistant Collector First Class, Etawah in a case under Section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 2. The Pradhan, Gaon Sabha Umri, filed a suit claiming that plot no. 1899, area 0.18 acres, was Gaon Sabha property, and seeking the judgment of the defendant Chhidda as a trespasser. Chhidda contested the suit by claiming that land was not Gaon Sabha property and that he himself had been in possession of the land from before the abolition of zamindari and is the sirdar thereof. Chhidda having died meanwhile has been substituted by his son. Both the courts below have decreed the suit. Mihi Lal and Chunni Lal, two of the sons of Chhidda have now come up in second appeal. 3. A number of grounds have been taken in the Second Appeal. The first ground is that the provisions of para 128 of the Gaon Sabha Manual have not been complied with inasmuch as the Land Management Committee by resolution dated 19-4-1973 had decided that the case be not prosecuted hence the Pradhan had no right to proceed with the case in violation of the resolution of the Land Management Committee. There is indeed on record a resolution of the Land Management Committee Umri dated 19-4-1973 to the effect that according to the members of the Committee the land in dispute has been in possession of Chhidda for the last thirty years; that Chhidda's possession was also recorded in proceedings in the Tahsil and that the Committee was of the view that the Gaon Samaj should not proceed against Chhidda. But the Pradhan Kedar Nath has recorded a dissenting note. 4. Para 128 of the U.P. Gaon Samaj and Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti (Land Management Committee) as a whole. "Thus, the position is clear that Kedar Nath, Pradhan of the Land Management Committee had no locus standi to file the suit under Section 209, U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act against Chhidda or to proceed with it, in violation of the resolution of the Land Management Committee. "Thus, the position is clear that Kedar Nath, Pradhan of the Land Management Committee had no locus standi to file the suit under Section 209, U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act against Chhidda or to proceed with it, in violation of the resolution of the Land Management Committee. If he disagreed with the resolution, the only course open for him was to get the resolution rescinded by the competent authority and thereafter get a different resolution passed by proceeding with the case. In the absence of such action by the Pradhan, the present proceedings are not maintainable at all. 5. The Second ground taken in the appeal is that the land in dispute having come within Town areas Debiapur the decree for ejectment could not be passed. I find that this plea should have been taken in the written statement of the defendant in the trial court itself but was not so taken. The ground may, therefore be ignored in second appeal. 6. The third ground taken in the second appeal is that the land in dispute being recorded 'mela' is not 'land' within the meaning of section 3(4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, and as such a suit under section 209 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is not maintainable. The extract from the triennial Katauni for 1377 to 1379 Fasli indeed shows that the plot in dispute along with the plot nos. 1876, 1894 and 1895 is recorded as 'mela'. Section 3(14) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act reads as follows: "3(14).""land", except in Sections 143 and 144, means land held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry which includes pisciculture and poultry farming". Thus for the purposes of Section 209, U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, land set apart for 'Mela' does not come within the definition of land as given in the above section. It has further been held by learned Bench of the Allahabad High Court in "Shivraj Singh v. State of U.P., 1976 R.D. 109 as follows : "The right to hold Mela on one's land is a right in immovable property vide' Ganesh Singh and others v. Shtla Bux Sigh and others, A.I.R. 1931 Oudh 110. It has further been held by learned Bench of the Allahabad High Court in "Shivraj Singh v. State of U.P., 1976 R.D. 109 as follows : "The right to hold Mela on one's land is a right in immovable property vide' Ganesh Singh and others v. Shtla Bux Sigh and others, A.I.R. 1931 Oudh 110. Section 49 of the Act imposes a bar inasmuch as no Civil or Revenue Court shall entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of rights in land lying within the consolidation areas or with respect to adjudication of any other right arising out of consolidation proceedings in regard to which the proceedings could or ought to have been taken under the Act. 'Land' has been defined in Section 3(5) so as to mean 'land held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry (including pisciculture and poultry-farming) and includes (i) the site, being part of a holding, of a house or other similar structure, and (ii) tree, wells and other improvements existing on the plots forming holding.' The right to hold Mela being itself a right to immovable property, the conflict of interest, if any, between the claimants and the question whether a particular co-sharer was alone entitled to manage the Mela and to derive the income therefrom is a matter which cannot be gone into by the consolidation authorities." 7. In view of the above observations of the learned Bench neither the consolidation authorities had the jurisdiction to adjudicate rights over the plot in dispute nor proceedings under Section 209 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act could be entertained. 8. In the light of the foregoing discussion I hold that the judgments of the courts below are in contravention of the law and cannot be sustained. I hereby allow the Section Appeal and set aside the orders of the courts below.