Judgment K. P. Singh, J. 1. THIS writ petition arises out of the proceedings under Rule 115-C of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The trial court through its order dated 11-2-1972 has ordered the petitioner to be evicted from the disputed land and he has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 52/- as damages. Against the order of the trial court, the petitioner had preferred a revision petition, which was recommended to be allowed by the Additional Commissioner through his order dated 29-3-1973. The revisional court through its order dated 14-10-1980 did not agree with the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner and dismissed the revision petition. Aggrieved by the order of the revisional court, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. THE learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the proceeding under Rule 115-C against the petitioner is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution ; hence it should be quashed. THE second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the disputed property did not vest in the Gaon Sabha under the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act ; hence the proceeding under Rule 115-C is bad in law. THE third contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that notice in Form-49 was not correctly served upon the petitioner ; hence the proceeding stands vitiated in law and deserves to be quashed. THE last contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the 'tahsildar' was not 'Collector'; hence the trial court had no jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioner. It is note-worthy that the learned counsel for the petitioner made his submissions on the above-mentioned points, but could not substantiate his submissions satisfactorily. 3. AS regards the first contention, it is necessary to mention the ruling Babu Lal v. Gaon Sabha Hashmi, AIR 1958 Allahabad page 97 wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court has indicated that the provisions of Rule 115-C are neither discriminatory nor hit by Article 14 of the Constitution ; hence the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is not acceptable to me. 4. 4. AS regards the second contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the provision of section 122-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and stressed that under that provision where property vested under the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in the Gaon Sabha or local authority only then proceeding could be initiated. He has only pointed out that the disputed land is a Navin Parti under the provisions of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act ; hence the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act were not attracted for the ejectment of the petitioner from such land. On my enquiry, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy me as to what was the nature of the disputed land on 1st July, 1952. From a perusal of the impugned judgments, it does not appear that such a point was ever raised before the revenue courts. In the absence of necessary materials it is not proper to entertain this contention at this stage and I think that the petitioner cannot be permitted to rake up this point specially when it involves investigation into the question of facts. To my mind, the second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner also fails in the circumstances of this case. Moreover, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner has no legs to stand in view of the provision of section 29-C of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, which reads as below ; 29-C. Vesting land contributed for public purposes- " The land contributed for public purposes under this Act shall, with effect from the date on which the tenure holders become entitle to enter into possession of the chak allotted to them under the provisions of this Act as amended from time to time, vest and be always deemed to have vested in the Gaon Sabha and Shall be utilised for the purposes for which it was earmarked in the Final Consolidation Scheme, or in case of failure of that purpose, for such other purposes as may be prescribed. (2) The provisions of Section 117 of the Uttar Pradesh ZA and LR Act, 1950 shall mutatis mutandis apply to such land if the land had vested in the Gaon Sabha by virtue of a declaration made by the State Government under sub-section (1) of that section, and as if the declarations were made subject to the conditions respecting utilisation specified in sub section (1) of this section." In view of the aforesaid provisions, the disputed land will be deemed to have vested in the Gaon Sabha under the provision of sub section (1) of Section 117 of the UP ZA and LR Act, 1950, therefore, the proceeding under Rule 115-C of Act 1 of 1951 could be initiated regarding the disputed land. I think that the petitioner cannot challenge the impugned orders on the basis of the second contention raised in this case. 5. TO substantiate the third contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited a large number of rulings such as Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, 1936 Privy Council, page 253, State of Gujarat v. Shanti Lal Mangaldas, 1969 SC page 634, Ram Chandra Keshav Adke (dead) by Lrs. v. Govind Joti Chavare, 1975 SC page 915, Kamlesh Kumar Gupta v. I Additional District and Sessions Judge Shahjahanpur, 1981 ALJ page 255. He mainly relied upon the observations made in 1981 ALJ (Supra) and stressed that for want of proper notice to the petitioner, the proceeding for eviction against the petitioner deserves to be quashed. It is not disputed before me that notice in Form 49-A was served upon the petitioner, but it contains some mistake; hence the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it was not a proper notice and the proceeding should be quashed. In my opinion, the notice served upon the petitioner substantially complied with the requirement of ZA Form 49-A and it is not a case where the petitioner did not get opportunity to contest the claim of the Gaon Sabha. The ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner and reported in 1981 ALJ (supra) dealt with the situation under different Acts and the wordings of section of that Act indicated that in the absence of notice, proceedings could not be initiated. But in the present case, the provisions, under consideration, are differently worded and in this case the petitioner has received requisite notice. But in the present case, the provisions, under consideration, are differently worded and in this case the petitioner has received requisite notice. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of proper notice in ZA Form 49-A, the proceeding should be quashed. I am in agreement with the learned Member, Board of Revenue that ZA Form 49-A served upon the petitioner was not defective so as to quash the proceedings against him. 6. TO reply the last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioner, I think that the ruling reported in Sanwaliye v. Gaon Sabha, 1975 RD page 147, based upon the ruling reported in State of U. P. v. Paraspeti Gaon Sabha, 1965 RD page 379, is the complete answer to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Under the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, a tahsildar is fully empowered to initiate proceeding under Rule 115-C of Act 1 of 1951. It is noteworthy that on the facts of the present case and in view of the prevalent law for ejectment of a trespasser of the Gaon Sabha property, there does not arise any bona fide question of title and the petitioner has been rightly evicted from the disputed land by the revenue courts in the proceeding giving rise to the present writ petition. 7. IN the result, all the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner fail and the writ petition deserves dismissal. Accordingly, I dismiss the writ petition, but there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.