JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member. - In this reference dated October 22, 1983, the learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, has recommended that the order of the learned trial court dated January 21, 1983 be set aside and the case be remanded for a fresh decision according to law. 2. None appeared on the date fixed by the learned Additional Commissioner and so the reference is being decided after perusal of the record. 3. I agree that the learned Additional Commissioner that advantage of Section 123 can be available to the opposite party Chhuttan only if it was a matter of house constructed on the Gaon Sabha land with certain restrictions. However, unauthorised occupation is by putting up a lime kiln on plot number 1788 area 0-3-2 and so the learned trial court had to proceed in accordance with the provisions under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 4. It appears that an earlier ejectment order by the learned trial court was subjected to the revision before the Board and it was directed in the Board's order dated January 23, 1979 that the learned trial court should give a finding whether the proceedings were initiated within four months of the alleged encroachment and whether the proceedings would lie at the instance of the Goan Sabha, the land being within the municipal limits. The notice in this case was issued on May 5, 1970, while the report was made on January 6, 1970. By the Amendment Act No. XXX of 1975, the period, was amended to two months and so the notice must be deemed regularised now. Although, the learned trial court has not given any finding on it, there is no need now to give any finding on this point. 5. A regards the other point, the provision under Section 122-B (3) of the Act, it is clearly provided that the action is taken by the Collector if in his opinion any property vested in the Gaon Sabha or a local authority is damaged or any land so vested is occupied by otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act. It is not necessary to determine how these proceedings stated. If the Gaon Sabha or the local authority brings the matter to the notice of the court or the court learns in any manner otherwise, action can be taken. It is not necessary to determine how these proceedings stated. If the Gaon Sabha or the local authority brings the matter to the notice of the court or the court learns in any manner otherwise, action can be taken. Further, it is a mistake to consider this legal action as between the two parties. The learned trial court has to make enquiry and has to pass suitable orders. For this purpose the court can obtain whatever evidence it considers necessary including local inspection by itself. No proceedings can be dropped on the ground that the Lekhpal or the L.M.C. or the local-body failed to produce any evidence. Section 122-B of the Act is self contained section including the procedure as well and the proceedings is of summary nature. Therefore, the duty lay squarely on the trail court to make enquiry, to arrive at a finding and to pass suitable orders. 6. In view of the above position, even if the land belonging to the local-body was in unauthorised occupation, the trial court had no jurisdiction to drop the proceedings for any shortcoming by any agency or even on the ground that the possession was of a long duration. The advantage under Section 122-B(4-F) of the Act is admissible only in respect of cultivated land, provided it is no land mentioned under Section 132 of the Act. The present case being of land occupied for lime-kiln is not covered by Section 122-B(4-F) of the Act. Further, in view of the amendment specifically with retrospective effect of Section 210 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the rights and title of the Gaon Sabha do not get extinguished inspite of long possession by any person unless such possession can be traced and continued back to the period before vesting. In that case, the trial court under Section 122-B of the Act has no jurisdiction to decide title, but only to afford opportunity under Section 122-B(4-B) of the Act to the opposite party to get its title declared by filing a suit in a court of competent jurisdiction. 7. In that case, the trial court under Section 122-B of the Act has no jurisdiction to decide title, but only to afford opportunity under Section 122-B(4-B) of the Act to the opposite party to get its title declared by filing a suit in a court of competent jurisdiction. 7. On the above considerations, I find the order of the learned trial court dated January 21, 1983 was passed without jurisdiction, the revision petition is allowed on this order dated January 21, 1983 is hereby set aside and the case is remanded to the learned trial court for fresh consideration and decision in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations above.