JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - In this reference dated May 31, 1977, the learned Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, has recommended that the revision petition be allowed and the order by the learned trial court under Section 122-B of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act be set aside. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record. 3. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that a bona fule question of title had been raised and the court should have dropped the proceedings. He further argued that the opposite party had produced the old Pradhan who deposed on May 9, 1975 that he had settled the laud in favour of Brahmanand revisionist. So, the possession of the opposite party was permissive and proceedings under Section 122-B could not be taken up. The Pradhan also proved two rent receipts issued by him. In support, the counsel cited a ruling reported in 1979 R.D. 106. 4. The learned D.G.C. (R.) argued that since there was no resolution of the L.M.C. allotting the land to Brahmanand, there could be no permissive possession. In the cited ruling (1979 R.D. 106) also possession with the permission of the Gaon Sabha was held to bar any action under Section 122-B. Obviously, the Pradhan is not equivalent to L.M.C nor his permission or issuing receipts and realising rents without any allotment/resolution by the L.M.C. can Oc binding on the L.M.C. For the same reason, any such possession cannot be deemed permissive possession. In the instant case, the present Pradhan clearly said that in record there was no mention of allotment of land to Brahmanand, nothing to say of the L.M.C. resolution for allotment. There is no proof of any allotment by the L.M.C. Therefore, my considered view is that merely on the bash of permission by the Pradhan and his issuing receipts and realising rents, without any allotment by the L.M.C., the possession of the revisionist cannot be deemed to be permissive. 5. The applicant's counsel further cited a ruling reported in 1978 R.D. 298 in support of his contention that when a bona fide question of title existed and the then procedure provided for dropping the proceedings, that old procedure would apply and the case now cannot be remanded for proceeding under Section 122-B (4-B). 5. The applicant's counsel further cited a ruling reported in 1978 R.D. 298 in support of his contention that when a bona fide question of title existed and the then procedure provided for dropping the proceedings, that old procedure would apply and the case now cannot be remanded for proceeding under Section 122-B (4-B). In this Division Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was held that any procedural amendment should not be so interpreted as to affect the substantive rights already acquired or any order validly passed under the procedural law for the time being in force. Since in the instant case, the trial court had not found any bona fide question of title raised, there is no question of affecting any substantive rights acquired by the revisionist or any order passed in his favour. Besides, in the instant case, this consideration becomes hypothetical because existence of a bona fide question of title is not established, in 1978 R.D. 84, it was held that a bona fine dispute of title is raised when a person claiming title produces some creditworthy evidence of that title. In 1977 R.D. it was held that the possession has to nave some sanctity of law before it can raise bona fide question of title. Such basis is absent in the instant case. The matter was gone into by the trial court and it was found that no permission or authority flowed from the L.M.C. The permission by the Pradhan on his own was insufficient to raise a bona fide question of title and the decision by the learned trial court did not surfer from any illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction or any failure to exercise jurisdiction. 6. In consequence the reference need not be accepted and the revision petition being without force, is dismissed. The records of the courts below be returned without delay.