JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - In this reference dated June 7, 1973, the learned Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, has recommended that the revision petition of the Gaon Sabha may be rejected, on the ground that the trial court had earlier also dropped the proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act on August 19, 1959, then suit filed by the Gaon Sabha under Section 299 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act failed and again proceedings started under Section 122-B of the Act have been dropped on December 30, 1972 as not maintainable, which last order was justified. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record. 3. The learned D.G.C. (R) for the Gaon Sabha argued that the learned trial court had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him because the reasons given for dropping the proceedings were not applicable to the present case. The trial court had dropped the proceedings on the ground that a question of title was involved. But in the amended section now, there is provision to stay the proceedings and allow three months time to the opposite party to get their title declared by a competent court. The procedure is applicable with retrospective effect and so, now Section 122-B(4-B) of the Act will apply. The Commissioner has not considered it all if any question of title was involved, but only because of the unsuccessful history of the Gaon Sabha litigation, he found the impugned order justified. It was overlooked that even when the impugned order was passed, plot number 484 total area 2.66 acres was recorded as Pokhari in Khatauni 1376-79F and was Gaon Sabha property, of which an area .72 acre had been encroached upon by Awadh Kishore and Janki. No title is decided under Section 122-B and these proceedings arise on account of unauthorised occupation of property or land of the Gaon Sabha. In the circumstances, dropping of the proceedings for any shortcoming or on account of a finding of no such unauthorised occupation does not create a bar to future proceedings under Section 122-B. There can be real unauthorised occupation on a future date by the same person and proceedings under Section 122-B would be justified. 4. In the circumstances, dropping of the proceedings for any shortcoming or on account of a finding of no such unauthorised occupation does not create a bar to future proceedings under Section 122-B. There can be real unauthorised occupation on a future date by the same person and proceedings under Section 122-B would be justified. 4. As regards the case under Section 209 being dismissed, it was pointed out by the learned D.G.C. (R) that although title was decided in favour of the Gaon Sabha, but issue number 5 was decided against the Gaon Sabha holding that since the land trespassed by the defendant was not identifiable and not precisely demarcated, no ejectment could be granted. The court, no doubt, found no title of the defendants, not even any settlement of land by Zamindar in favour of the defendants was proved. So this decision dated January 14, 1972 in Gaon Sabha's suit under Section 209 could not bar any proceedings under Section 122-B. The learned Commissioner did not consider why the proceedings under Section 122-B could not be maintainable, but was clearly led away by continued failures in litigation by the Gaon Sabha. The learned counsel for the opposite party has not been able to show any ground on which it could be said that the trial court had no jurisdiction to proceed. 5. In fact, the observation of the learned trial court that it was evident from the perusal of the judgment in the suit under Section 209 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act that a question of title was involved, was itself incorrect, for title was decided in favour of the Gaon Sabha. What the learned trial court missed, in fact, was that it was his duty to make an enquiry required under Rule 115-D(2) of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules. By Section 122-B(5) Rules 115-C to 115-H have been made applicable to these proceedings and the enquiry aforesaid has its own importance as the generally found defective notices in form 49-A issued to the opposite party result from want of this enquiry under Rule 115-D(2). By Section 122-B(5) Rules 115-C to 115-H have been made applicable to these proceedings and the enquiry aforesaid has its own importance as the generally found defective notices in form 49-A issued to the opposite party result from want of this enquiry under Rule 115-D(2). The learned trial court should have ascertained by a proper enquiry the plot numbers, area, boundary and location (by demarcation and preparing a site plan if only a part of khasra number is encroached upon), names of persons with addresses in unauthorised occupation and as far as possible, the period of such occupation before the issue of notice. 6. In the circumstances, I find that the learned trial court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it and the revision petition deserves to be allowed. The reference is, accordingly, rejected, the revision allowed, the order of the learned trial court dated December 30, 1972 is set aside and the case is remanded with the directions that a notice in proper form be issued after a satisfactory enquiry as required by Rule 115-D (2) and during the enquiry if a bona fide question of title is still raised, necessary opportunity as provided under Section 122-B (4-B) of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act shall also be provided and the case be decided thereafter according to law.