JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - In this reference dated June 29, 1971, the learned Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, has recommended that the revision petition against the learned trial court's order of ejectment under Section 122-B, Rule 115-C of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act/Rules, may be rejected. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the record. None appeared for the apposite party in spite of notice. 3. The learned trial court in addition to ejectment order, imposed Rs. 2,116/- as damages. There had been an earlier order dated July 1967 for ejectment of Mahabir (father of the present applicant) under Rule 115-C However, the present proceedings are not barred by any earlier order under similar proceedings for under Section 122-B of the Act, only unauthorised occupation on the date of report forming the basis of the proceedings is considered and earlier reports and orders on them are not relevant. 4. However, as the learned counsel for the applicant informed, a declaratory suit for these same five plots in dispute was filed by the revisionist, vide suit number 712 of 1963, decided by the learned trial court on November 27, 1968 against the plaintiff who preferred an appeal against the decree. The appeal is not shown to have been decided. Further, tile revisionist was recorded in Varg-4 since 1372 F. No doubt, a bona fide question of title has been raised form of Section 122-B(4-B) of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act which was not available when the reference was made. Even without opportunity, the revisionist acted in accordance with the requirements of Section 122-B (4-B) of the Act and the proceedings have to be stayed until the appeal, if any, are decided. Final order passed on August 12, 1970 cannot, therefore, be upheld and the reference is not acceptable. 5. Accordingly, I allow the revision petition, set aside the order of the learned trial court dated August 12, 1970 and remand the case with the direction that the revisionist be alleged reasonable time to inform the court if he has succeeded in establishing any title in his favour through declaration by a competent court of first instance or appeal, keeping the proceedings stayed under Section 122-B(4-B) in the meantime, and in suit event or failing such declaration, the proceedings shall be decided depending on the result of the declaratory suit or appeal.