JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - These are two connected references numbers 11 of 1972-73 and No. 53 of 1977-78 arising out of the order dated Sent ember 28, 1970 by the S.D.O Mohammadabad, dropping the proceedings under Section 122-B and Rule 115-C of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act and Rules, and the order dated September 12, 1975 by the Tahsildar Mohammadabad reviewing his earlier order dated July 5, 1975 by which proceedings under Rule 115-C were dropped. The recommendation in the first reference is that the revision petition be dismissed and in the second reference, it is recommended that the impugned order be set aside. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that these various proceedings relate to the same land in dispute, the proceedings started under Section 122-B and Rule 115-C of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act and Rules on the report of the Pradhan, Phool Chand dated May 10, 1966, were dropped by the S.D.O. on September 28, 1970. In an earlier case under Section 122-B, by order of the Tahsildar dated July 26, 1968, proceedings had been dropped. It was further found that the Pradhan Phool Chand had no authority from the Land Management Committee to move the applications. 4. Thereafter a third time proceedings under Rule 115 C started on the report of the Lekhpal on February 7, 1971 and an ex parte order of ejectment was passed along with the imposition of damages. The revisionist applied for setting aside the ex parte order and for being heard which was allowed and after hearing, the proceedings were again dropped on July 5, 1975. Then certain persons moved for review of this order and the revisionist had contested that the applicants of the review application did not have any authority but the Tahsildar without any reason, on September 12, 1975, ordered that the earlier order dated July 5, 1975 be set aside and evidence be taken on September 26, 1975. The learned Additional Commissioner has recommended that this last order is not a valid order and has to be set aside. 5. The learned Additional Commissioner has recommended that this last order is not a valid order and has to be set aside. 5. The learned Additional Commissioner in revision No. 5281431-A of 1970, has observed that the earlier proceedings under Section 122-B had been dropped because no case against Bal Chand was proved and so there was no question of starting proceedings afresh. He found that no illegality, material irregularity or error in the exercise of jurisdiction was committed by the learned trial court. Here, it may be observed that in these proceedings for ejectment and imposition of damages, no rights are decided and only unauthorised occupation is ejected as and when found in unauthorised occupation. If there are proceedings a second time, it is obvious that the unauthorised possession for the period after the first proceedings were dropped, is under consideration. There is no question of any application of res-judicata. 6. But in the instant matter covering multiple proceedings for ejectment/imposition of damages for unauthorised possession on plot number 81, 82, and 83, no useful purpose will be served if the proceedings started a second time are allowed to continue, because a third time on the report of the Lekhpal, the proceedings were again started. In the circumstances of the case, I am, therefore, inclined to accept the reference and recommendation dated July 27, 1972 and reject the concerned revision petition. 7. As regards the second reference, although I see justification for setting aside the order dated September 12, 1975 passed by the Tahsildar Mohammadabad, yet I am not inclined to accept the consequential position of letting the order dated July 5, 1975 stand as it is, which means that the proceedings started on the report of the Lekhpal be dropped, because it is based on a misconception. Firstly, this order dated July 5, 1973 says that the possession of the opposite party has been proved but he has not been ejected from the land which itself is hot a fact. Secondly, it says that the proceedings on the second report cannot continue on account of the earlier proceedings being dropped. This also is against law because as observed above, no res-judicata applies here and these proceedings have to be decided on the basis of unauthorised possession and damages caused as on the date of the report on which the proceedings started. This also is against law because as observed above, no res-judicata applies here and these proceedings have to be decided on the basis of unauthorised possession and damages caused as on the date of the report on which the proceedings started. Obviously, these various proceedings on different reports have to be decided independently of each other without going into the question of decision of rights. The learned trial court could not take into account any earlier proceedings dropped on July 26, 1988 or September 28, 1970 for unauthorised possessions not proved in the periods before these respective dates and in the last proceedings, it had to give a finding whether after September 28, 1970, there was any unauthorised possession or not. 8. In the light of the above discussion, the order dated July 5, 1975 is plainly unsustainable and must be set aside along with the subsequent order dated September 18, 1975. In the result, these last proceedings started on the report of the Lekhpal will continue and have to be decided after considering the evidence on record and such further inquiry as the learned trial court may consider necessary for determination of the factual position whether the opposite party is in unauthorised occupation of plot numbers 81, 82 and 83 or not. In case a bona fide question of title becomes apparent, the learned trial court would, no doubt allow opportunity as provided under Section 122-B (4-B) of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. The trial court of itself under these proceedings, has no power to decide the title even on the basis of any continued possession of the opposite party, that has to be left to the court having jurisdiction to which the opposite party in those proceedings under Section 122-B must approach. 9. Accordingly, I accept the reference and recommendation dated July 27, 1972 and reject the revision petition number 528/431-A of 1970. Further, accepting the reference and recommendation dated December 6, 1976 with modification mentioned above, I set aside the learned trial court's order dated July 5, 1975 and September 12, 1975 and remand the case to the learned trial court with the direction to proceed according to law, keeping in view the observations made above and decide the case. 10. This order will govern reference No. 11 of 1972-73, Azarqgarll and reference No. 53 of 1977-78, Azamgarh.