JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is a defendant's second appeal against Judgment and decree dated August 18, 1973 passed by learned Addl. Commissioner, Allahabad Division, dismissing Appeal No. 405 of 1971-72 (Farrukhabad) against Judgment and decree dated August 8, 1972 passed by Revenue Officer, Farrukhabad in a case under Section 229-B/209 of Act I of 1951 decreeing plaintiff-respondent's suit. 2. The Gaon Sabha filed the suit that the land in suit belonged to Gaon Sabha; that the defendant took forcible possession in 1370 Fasli, that his name is entered as an occupant of class 4; that Tahsildar and wrongly declared defendant as Sirdar, hence this suit for declaration Gaon Sabha property and the defendant be ejected. 3. The defendant contested the suit with the allegation that he had been in possession since prior to the abolition of Zamindari and had acquired Sirdari rights; that he was declared to be Sirdar by Tahsildar/Assistant Collector, 1st Class by his order dated August 22, 1979 in a proceeding under Rule 115-E(3) and rent was realised for 16 years and Rs. 220.40 were deposited on November 5, 1969, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. 4. Both the courts below held that the suit was maintainable and decreed the plaintiff's suit. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 6. It was argued that the decision under Rule 115-E(3) of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules concluded the status of the defendant-appellant and it is not open to the Gaon Sabha to file the suit against the decision of the Collector when he was admitted to be in possession as a tenant and rent was fixed and realised from 1360 Fasli. 7. It was argued in reply that the suit was maintainable under Rule 115-H of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules and the concurrent findings of both the courts below cannot be interfered with. 8. The previous Rule 115-E(3) was deleted from November 1, 1975. 7. It was argued in reply that the suit was maintainable under Rule 115-H of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules and the concurrent findings of both the courts below cannot be interfered with. 8. The previous Rule 115-E(3) was deleted from November 1, 1975. The previous Rule 115-E(3) existed from March 18, 1959 to August 11, 1964 upto November 1, 1975 and ran as follows:- "115-E(3) - If the Collector comes to the conclusion that the objector is in legal occupation of the land under notice as a tenure holder or that he did not cause any injury or interference to Gaon Samaj property, the proceedings will be dropped and a copy of the order shall be sent to the Tahsildar concerned for information or necessary action for getting the land revenue or rent fixed according to law." 9. Rule 115-H is in existence on June 13, 1953 and is as follows:- "115-H. Nothing in Rules 115-D to 115-G shall debar any person from establishment of his right in a court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the law for time being in force in respect of any matter for which any order has been made by the Collector." 10. Under previous Rule 115-E(3) of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules the defendant-appellant by order dated August 22, 1969 was found in legal occupation of the disputed land as a tenure-holder by the competent authority Tahsildar/Assistant Collector 1st Class (Collector) who dropped the proceedings and fixed the rent and realised it from the defendant-appellant which was deposited and the rent of 16 years so fixed was realised on November 5, 1969. This groves that the appellant was admitted to be in legal occupation of the land as a tenure-holder and was admitted to be Sirdar of the disputed land. In my considered opinion the suit filed by the Gaon Sabha was not maintainable under Rule 115-H of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules mentioned above which provides that the order passed under R. 115-D to 115-G of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules shall not debar "any person" from establishing his right in court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with law in respect of any matter for which any order has been made by the Collector. The phrase used in the rule is any person which in my considered opinion does not include the Gaon Sabha. The phrase used in the rule is any person which in my considered opinion does not include the Gaon Sabha. If the Legislature would have thought it fit to leave the matter so decided under Rule 115-E(3) to be agitated even by the Gaon Sabha or the L.M.C. the proper phrase to be used would have been 'any party' and not 'any person'. The phrase 'any person' refers to the person used in Rule 115-E (1) and to whom notice in Z.A. Form 49-A had been issued and does not refer to any person in general. I, therefore, hold that the suit was not maintainable and the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are erroneous and illegal and are liable to be set aside and this appeal is liable to be allowed. 11. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed with costs although. The judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are hereby set aside and the suit is dismissed and the defendant-appellant is declared to be Sirdar in possession of the disputed plots who shall be so recorded and the papers shall be corrected accordingly.