JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - These are three reference against order dated March 8, 1978, passed by Tahsildar/Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Konch, District Jalaun in cases under Rule 115-C of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules ordering ejectment and imposing damages against the applicants. 2. The learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division by his orders dated July 30, 1978, July 31, 1978 and July 31, 1978 has recommended to pertly allow the revision application and to set aside the orders of the court regarding damages only and to dismiss the revision applications partly and to confirm the orders regarding ejectment. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants and learned D.G.C. (R.), Jhansi at length and have perused the record. 4. The Lekhpal had reported that applicant Shyam Lal had trespassed over 48 yards x 48 yards and Rama over 48 yards x 43 yards and Kripa over .27 acres of Gaon Sabha land in different plots by constructing houses or walls. Notices were issued to the applicants who had filed objections alleging that they had got themselves operated for vasectomy, on account of which the disputed land was allotted to them by Gaon Sabha by its resolution dated January 23, 1977 and that they were not trespassers and were not liable to ejectment. 5. The learned lower court dismissed the objections and ordered ejectment of the applicants and imposed Rs. 300/- as damages against each of them. 6. It has been argued on behalf of the applicants that they were not rank trespassers. The disputed land was allotted to them by the L.M.C. by its resolution and in bona fide belief that the L.M.C. was empowered to allot the land to them as they had complied the condition of having got operated for vasectomy according to Government scheme the land was delivered to them by Lekhpal in view of the resolution and they had constructed their houses, therefore, they were not liable to ejectment in the summary proceeding under Rule 115-C read with Section 122-B of Ac I of 1951. Reliance has been placed on Govind Ram v. Gaon Sabha, 1975 R.D. 127 and Kanhaiya Lal v. Gaon Sabha, 1979 R.D. 106. 7. Reliance has been placed on Govind Ram v. Gaon Sabha, 1975 R.D. 127 and Kanhaiya Lal v. Gaon Sabha, 1979 R.D. 106. 7. It has been argued in reply that allotment under Section 122-C(2) without previous permission of the S.D.O. is illegal and according to Rule 115-N allotment according to Rule 115-L, and Rule 115-N-8 the previous sanction of the S.D.O. is essential, without such sanction the allotment is void ab initio and has got no legal sanctity and the applicants are liable to ejectment in summary proceedings. Reliance has been placed on Charan Das v. Gaon Sabha, 1979 R.D. 300 Rasool Ahmad Nooruddin v. Beni Prasad, 1965 R.D. 79, Ram Chander v. Hukum Chandra, 1976 R.D. 185 and Janta Junior High School v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1979 R.D. 434. It was further argued that the granting of lease or Patta is a contract and if it is granted illegally it is void according to Section 23 of the Contract Act and that there is a difference between Section 209 and Section 122-B of Act I of 1951. In Section 122-B if the land is occupied otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act by any person, action against him can be taken and in Section 209 when the possession is taken or retained without consent and in contravention of the provisions of the law, action can be taken against such person and possession in colour of invalid title is possession otherwise than in accordance with law and action is maintainable. Reliance has been placed on Mahendra Prakash v. Commissioner, Meerut Division, 1970 A.W.R. 408, Prem Raji v. Jhungi Nath, 1964 R.D. 130, Raja Harbansh Singh Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya v. Land Management Committee, 1971 R.D. 514, Collector of Bombay v. Municipal Corporation of City of Bombay and others, 1951 S.C. 469, Gram Samaj v. Hari Ram, 1973 R.D. 430, Raja Harbansh Singh Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidhlaya v. Land Management Committee, 1972 R.D. 392 and Raghubir v. Shanker, 1974 R.D. 334. 8. Section 122-C(2) is not applicable to the present case as allotment was not made about land ear-marked for the classes mentioned in Section 122-C(i) of the Act, consequently Rule 115-L is also not applicable, Section 195 of Act I of 1951 is also not applicable as lease was not granted for agricultural purposes. 8. Section 122-C(2) is not applicable to the present case as allotment was not made about land ear-marked for the classes mentioned in Section 122-C(i) of the Act, consequently Rule 115-L is also not applicable, Section 195 of Act I of 1951 is also not applicable as lease was not granted for agricultural purposes. But Rule 115-M.B.(1) is applicable to the present case which runs as follows: (1) Abadi sites other than those referred to in Rule 115-L and vested in a Gaon Sabha may be allotted for construction of buildings for residential or charitable purposes or for purposes of cottage industry in the following order of preference: (a) a landless agricultural labourer or village artisan residing in the village; (b) a Bhumidhar, Sirdar or Asami residing in the village and holding land less than 126 hectares (3.125 acres); (c) any other person residing in the village. Rule 115 M.B.(1)(b) and (C) enumerate the category of persons other than landless agricultural labourer or village artisans residing in the village. The applicants are covered by categories mentioned in Rule 115 M.B.(1)(b)(c). No previous sanction of the assistant Collector Incharge of the Sub-Division is required for allotment made under Rule 115-M or U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules. The proviso of Rule 115-N of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules is not applicable to the allotment made under Rule 115 M.B. The said proviso runs as follows and it does not include rule 115-M.B.:- "Provided that the prior approval of the Assistant Collector-in-charge of the Sub-Division shall be obtained for every allotment under Rule 115-L or 115-M." In view of the above in my considered opinion the allotment made by the L.M.C. to the applicants was not invalid for want of previous sanction of the S.D.O. (Assistant Collector 1st Class of the Sub-Division) because the proviso to Rule 115-N is not applicable to the present allotments. 9. Even if it is taken for granted that the proviso of Rule 115-N is applicable even to the allotments made under Rule 115-M.B. of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules; even then the question for determination remains whether the applicants can be evicted in summary proceedings under Section 122-B read with Rule 115-C of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules or not. 10. 10. According to rulings reported in 1975 R.D. 197, 1959 R.D. 172 and 1979 R.D. 106 the applicants cannot be evicted in such proceedings, i.e., under Section 122-B of Act I of 1951, because the applicants appeared to have taken possession on the disputed land in the bona fide belief that the L.M.C. had authority to allot the land to them for building purposes. 11. The rulings relied upon on behalf of the learned D.G.C. (R.), Jhansi are not applicable to the present case. In Chandradas v. Gaon Sabha (supra), it was held that the Chairfan had no power to permit any person for the construction of house over the Gaon Sabha land, because such permission will be deemed to be an act of person designate at the best and not on behalf of the L.M.C. In the present case allotment was made by the resolution of the L.M.C. to the applicants. Rasul Ahmad Noor Uddin v. Beni Prasad (supra) is also not applicable to the present case as it lays down that a declaratory suit is maintainable if the decree or deed had no legal force. There was no declaratory suit or regular ejectment suit against the applicants. Section 23 of the Contract Act is also not applicable. The ruling of 1970 A.W.R. 408 is also not applicable to the present case because in it is was held that Section 40(1)(C) of the U.P. Municipality's Act 1916 was applicable, but it was not held that the lease was invalid which was granted to the brother of the applicant who was a member of a Municipal Board and had participated in the meetings in which the lease was granted to his brothers and had not taken previous permission of the prescribed authority. This ruling rather helps the applicant. In rulings reported in 1964 R.D. 130, 1971 R.D. 514, 1973 R.D. 430, 1972 R.D. 292 and 1974 R.D. 334, it has been laid down that in the suits for ejectment invalidity of the lease granted in contravention of the provisions of law can be looked into. In those cases regular suits for ejectment were filed and summary proceeding provided under Section 122-B was not taken recourse to. The facts of A.I.R. 1951 (S.C.) 469 are also different and it is not applicable to the present case. 12. In those cases regular suits for ejectment were filed and summary proceeding provided under Section 122-B was not taken recourse to. The facts of A.I.R. 1951 (S.C.) 469 are also different and it is not applicable to the present case. 12. The pronouncement of 1976 R.D. 185 and 1969 R.D. 434 are not applicable to the present case i.e., the allotment made to the applicants is not void ab initio because there is no provisions of Section 45-A(ii) of the U.P. C.H. Act to make allotments made by the L.M.C. under Rule 115 M.B. of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules invalid and void ab initio. In view of all the above in my considered opinion where the L.M.C. by its resolution makes any allotment and deliver possession to allottee's who in bona fide belief make constructions on the allotted land and such allotments are either not sanctioned by the S.D.O. or no previous sanction is obtained from the S.D.O. for such allotments, such allottee's are not rank trespassers and against them proceedings under Section 122-B of Act I of 1951 read with Rule 115-C are not maintainable. The only remedy available to the authorities is for filing suit for their ejectment. Therefore, the order of the learned Tahsildar, Assistant Collector 1st Class in all the three cases is liable to be set aside and the revision applications are liable to be allowed and the references made by the learned Additional Commissioner recommending only for setting aside the order regarding damages alone cannot be accepted. The revision applications are liable to be allowed. 13. In view of the above, all the three revision applications are allowed and the orders passed by Tahsildar/Assistant Collector 1st Class in all the three cases are hereby set aside. This order shall govern all the three references as they have been argued together by the learned counsel for the parties and involve the common question of law and facts. Copies of this order shall be placed on connected reference files.