JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member - This is a revision against order dated 30-6-78 passed by learned Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra dismissing Revision No. 137 of 1975-76/Etah against order dated 6-9-76 passed by Additional Collector Etah in a proceeding under Section 212-A of Act I of 1951 ordering ejectment of the applicant from the disputed land. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that one Hukam Pal Singh Pradhan / Chairman of village Nagla Sukhdav Tehsil Jalesar District Etah moved an application alleging that asami leases granted to revisionist on 23-4-1963 are of indefinite period, that the land in dispute is of public utility and the allottees have not paid the rent fixed to them. Notices were issued and a report from the Tahsildar was called for. Tahsildar submitted his report on 8-10-75 stating that the revisionist had other land apart from the allotted land. 3. The revisionist filed objections contesting the notice and stating that the application under Section 212-A is not maintainable and the application has been moved due to partibandi. Applicants are in possession for more than 12 years and cannot be ejected in these summary proceedings. They are paying rent regularly. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have pursued the record. 5. It has been argued that patta of asami rights was granted to the applicants on 23-7-63 and the applicants were recorded asami then the sanction of S. D. O. was not required and the Courts below wrongly held patta to be illegal without sanction of the S. D. O. as S. D. O.'s sanction prior to 28-1-69 was not required in old Rule 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Act, that no evidence on behalf of L. M. C. and Pradhan was adduced and the payment of rent by the applicant land being recorded from a long time, they were not liable to be ejected under Section 112-A. Reliance has been placed on 1966 R. D. page 414 and it has been further argued that no damages were imposed, therefore, the proceeding was illegal. Reliance his been placed on 1968 R.D. page 281 (S.C.) it has been further argued that in any case the applicants were liable to be ejected only under Section 202 of Act I of 1951 and not under Section 212 of Act I of 1951 that there is no evidence that the disputed land is of public utility. 6. It has been argued in reply that the concurrent findings of both the Courts below are not liable to be interfered with in revision that the applicants were liable to be ejected under Section 212-A and has been rightly ejected. 7. It is admitted case of the parties that lease for indefinite period with asami rights was given by the L. M. C. to the applicant. That lease has been cancelled, therefore, unless the lease of the applicants are cancelled they cannot be ejected in a summary proceedings like proceeding under Section 212-A of Act I of 1951. 8. The Courts below have not cared to read Sections 212 and 212-A which provide for ejectment of persons from land of public utility. Section 212 of Act I of 1951 provide for ejectment from land of public utility enumerated in the section on the payment of compensation. Section 212-A provides for ejectment from land of public utility enumerated in Section 212 on payment of compensation after issuance of notice after ordering in writing stated the ground of his so being satisfied then issuing notice to the opposite party to show cause why an order of ejectment be not made against him and then follow the procedure laid down in subsequent sub-sections. No such things appear to have been done by Trial Court. 9. It has been held in Pran Sukh and others v. Assistant. Collector 1st Class, S. D. O. Nwabganj, District Bareilly and another, 1966 R. D. page 414 as follows :- "Section 212, and consequently Section 212-A, apply to case where a person has a legal title in some laud which was land of public utility and it is sought to evict that person in possession from such land. In the instant case the only finding which has been recorded by the Assistant Collector is that the land was land of public utility, but that is not enough to attract the provisions of Sections 212-A or 212. In the instant case the only finding which has been recorded by the Assistant Collector is that the land was land of public utility, but that is not enough to attract the provisions of Sections 212-A or 212. It has also to be established that the person in possession had a legal title in it cither because he had been admitted as a tenant or grove-holder or because being an intermediary, he had himself cultivated it or had planted a grove thereupon. No such finding has been given in the instant case. Sections 212 and 212-A do not apply to land which vests in the Gram Samaj and over which some person had trespassed. Where eviction under Sections 212 or 212-A is ordered the person in possession has to be paid compensation which indicates that these two sections contemplated the acquisition of the legal right of the person in possession of the land." 10. It is clear that Section 212-A is not applicable to land vested in Gaon Sabha but is applicable to land of persons who had a legal title and bad acquired title under Z. A. Act, therefore, the proceeding was started with a highly misconceived notion of Section 212-A of Act I of 1951. 11. The proper procedure would have been either to have filed suit after giving determination notices for ejectment under Section 202 of Act I of 1951 or cancelling the leases being against statutory provisions of law. 12. In view of the above, this revision application is allowed. The orders passed by both the Court below are set aside and the application for proceeding under Section 212-A is rejected.