JUDGMENT : K.P. Singh, J. This writ petition arises out of proceedings u/s 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act initiated by opposite party No. 4 Gaon Sabha, village Jagat against the Petitioners. 2. The contention of the Gaon Sabha was that the disputed plot No. 393 was the property of Gaon Sabha and the Petitioners had illegally occupied the disputed land in the year 1374-F. hence they were liable to eviction and to pay damages to the tune of Rs. 2487/-. 3. The Petitioners had contested the claim of the opposite party Gaon Sabha on the allegations that the disputed plot was neither tank nor was the property of Gaon Sabha and that the Petitioners were tenure-holders of the disputed land and were immune from ejectment and were not liable to pay damages. 4. The Trial Court through its judgment dated 17-3-1971 negatived the claim of the Petitioners and gave judgment for the Gaon Sabha, opposite party No. 4 in the present writ petition. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court the Petitioners preferred a revision petition which was recommended by the Additional Commissioner through his judgment dated 18-1-1973 for reduction of the amount of damages to the tune of Rs. 394-71 P. only, but recommended that the Petitioners should be evicted from the disputed land. The recommendation of the Additional Commissioner has been accepted by the revisional court through its judgment dated 2-1-1974. Against the judgment of the revisional court the Petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends before me that on the facts given in the judgment of the Trial Court there arose a bonafide question of title which could not be determined in proceedings u/s 122-B of the U.P. Z.A. and L. Rule Act, and the judgments of the revenue courts deserve to be quashed on this ground alone. 6. The Learned Counsel for the contesting opposite party Gaon Sabha has submitted in reply that during the consolidation operations the disputed land was held as Talab and the property of Gaon Sabha, hence no question of bonafide question of title arises in the circumstances of the present case and the revenue courts have taken a correct view in evicting the Petitioners and holding them liable to pay damages to the contesting opposite party. 7. 7. I have examined the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. The Learned Counsel for the contesting opposite party has invited my attention to the decision of a learned single Judge in First Appeal No. 89 of 1975, Gaon Sabha v. Ram karan singh and has contended that when the tenure-holder had failed to establish their claim before the consolidation authorities, their claim was barred by the provisions of Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act, hence no question of bonafide title can arise in the present case. True a tenure-holder cannot claim tenancy consolidation authorities, but even if a person is in possession over the property of Gaon Sabha he can put the Gaon Sabha to prove its claim. In the present case it is true that the Petitioners cannot claim tenancy right may not be sustainable in view of the consolidation proceedings or bar of Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act, but the question of bonafide title can arise in the present case. True a tenure-holder cannot claim tecancy right in the disputed land when he had failed to establish his claim before the consolidation authorities, but even if a person is in possession over the property of Gaon Sabha he can put the Gaon Sbha to prove its claim. In the present case it is true that the Petitioners cannot claim tenancy right in the disputed land in view of the fact that during the consolidation operations their claim has not been recognized in a major portion of the disputed land. 8. On the facts mentioned in the judgment of the Trail Court it appears that the disputed plot No. 393 has been constituted with the old numbers 949,950,951,952,953,954,955, and 1052. It also a appears from the judgment of the Trail Court that Petitioner Smt. Prem Wati has some interest in plots Nos. 955 and 949, hence the objection of Petitioner Smt. Prem wati that the disputed land is neither tank nor the property of Gaon Sabha does raise a bonafide question of title of Gaon Sabha at least. It is a quite different thing whether the Petitioners claim of tendency right may not be sustainable in view of the consolidation proceedings or bar of Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act, but the question whether the disputed property belonged to Gaon Sabha or not itself is a bonafide question in the circumstance of the present case. It is a quite different thing whether the Petitioners claim of tendency right may not be sustainable in view of the consolidation proceedings or bar of Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act, but the question whether the disputed property belonged to Gaon Sabha or not itself is a bonafide question in the circumstance of the present case. Even if the Petitioners are trespassers, they are liable to eviction only at the instance of rightful owner. In this view of the matter I find that the revenue courts have patently erred in entertaining the proceeding u/s 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against the Petitioners. 9. In Raja Ram v. Board of Revenue 1970 RD 156(1) a learned single Judge of this Court has held that if the objectors had a traible case the proceedings u/s 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act would be unwarranted. 10. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners has also suggested that due to subsequent legislation the Petitioners have acquired sirdari right in the disputed land However. I am not considering this question in the present writ petition. I am of the view that the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and that when the contesting opposite party Gaon Sabha initiates a fresh proceedings against the Petitioners for eviction in the appropriate court, it would be open to the contesting opposite party is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as that case had negatived the claim of the tenure-holder, but it had not indicated as to whether the Gaon Sabha’s claim of ownership would also be barred by the provisions of Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. 11. It is well known that the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to deal with the ownership of abadai or Talab etc. hence any finding given by the consolidation authorities would not stand in the way of the Petitioners, because the finding would be without jurisdiction. In a properly constituted suit or proceedings the claim of Gaon Sabha would be decided in the light of the pleadings and evidence on record. 12. In the result, the writ Petitioner succeeds and the impugned judgments of the revenue courts (Annexures 4' attached with the writ Petitioner) are hereby quashed and the proceeding u/s 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against the Petitioners are hereby dropped. Parties are directed bear their own costs.