JUDGMENT R.S. Verma, Member. - The plaintiffs Shoe Mohar and others field a suit under Section 229-B, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against Harsh Narain and others. The plots in suit are 14, 48, 141/1, 141/2, 163/19, 163/20/1, 163/20/9, 180, 181 and 182 of village Jot Patia, Tappa Haveli, Pargana Bhawapur, Tahsil Sadar, District Gorakhpur. 2. The plaintiff's claim was the plot Nos. 14, 48, 141/1 and 141/2 were their holdings and has been submerged in water and that after these plots emerged out of the River Rapti the plaintiffs became owners of these plots the learned trial court decreed the plaintiff' suit in respect to these plots. That part of the judgment has become final and now there is no dispute regarding those plots. 3. In respect of plot Nos. 163/19, 163/20/1, 163/20/9, 180, 181, 182 the case of the parties was that these plots were not in existence at or before the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, and that they gradually emerged from the River in from of the plot Nos. 141/1 and 141/2. The plaintiffs claimed that as these six plots were accretions to their old plots, they became its Bhumidhar with the help of the provisions of "The Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Regulations 1825. The defendants claimed these plots as Sirdar by Virtue of possession. The Gaon Sabha claimed it as its own under the provisions of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 4. The plaintiffs suit for these six plots was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Regulation did not apply. The plaintiff's first appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner and their second appeal was dismissed by this Board. The plaintiffs then went to High Court in a writ petition. The learned High Court allowed the writ, quashed the order of this Board and sent the case back to the Board, Holding that Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Regulation was applicable. This is now this second appeal has once again come up before this Board. 5. This case has been argued by the learned counsel for the parties in great detail and several new point have cropped up. The suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, is under Section 229-B, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Suit under that Section of the Z.A. Act can be filed only when Act is applicable to the plots in suit. This case has been argued by the learned counsel for the parties in great detail and several new point have cropped up. The suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, is under Section 229-B, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Suit under that Section of the Z.A. Act can be filed only when Act is applicable to the plots in suit. If the Act is not applicable, no relief under the act can be given. So we have to see whether U.P.Z.A. and L.R. act applies to the plots in suit. The parties agree that at or before the Act the six plots were not in existence and hence at the commencement of the Act the provisions of the Act could no apply to non-existent plots. Thess six lots emerged from the bed of the River Rapta after the Z.a. Act came into force. Unless the provision of the Act were extended tot he new accretions, suit under Section 229-B Z.A. Act cannot be filed in respect of the land in suit. 6. Section 2-A was subsequently inserted in in the Z.A. Act by Section 3 of U.P. Act XXI of 1982 and subsequently sub-section (1) of Section 2-A was substituted by Section 3 of U.P. Act XI of 1965. Section 2-A (1) of Z.A. Act lays down that 'Where any area is added to the territory of Uttar Pradesh by the action of any river or otherwise, the State Government may by notification in the Gazette extend this Act to that area.' Unless the Z.A. Act is extended to that area the Act will not be applicable to that area. There is no evidence in this case that the State Government has extended the Z.A. Act to the plots in suit, Shri G.N. Verma learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant conceded before me that Section 2-A, Z.A. Act does not help him. 7. Section 4, Z.A. Act lays down that As soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, the State Government may, by notification declare that, as from a date to be specified, all estates situate in Uttar Pradesh shall vest in the State and as from the beginning of the date so specified (hereinafter called the date of vesting), all such estates shall stand transferred to and vest except as hereinafter provided, in the State free from all encumbrances. Automatic vesting is not envisaged in the Z.A. Act, but has been made dependent on a Government notification. In respect of the land in suit no notification of the State Government was made and so the new accretions, that is the dispute plot in this case did not vest in the State. In absence of any vesting of the estates in the State of U.P., the question of settlement of these estates under Section 18 or 19 or under any other section of the Z.A. Act could not arise. Unless a land is settled or deemed to be settled with a person under Section 18 Z.A. Act or under any other provision of the Act, that person cannot become a bhumidar. Unless one is a bhumidahr he cannot bring a suit under section 229-B, Z.A. Act praying that he be declared as a Bhumidhar. 9. Faced with the difficulty, Shri G.N. Verma, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant argued that the Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Regulation will operate in such situations and will help his clients. He has argued that according to Section 4 of Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Regulation when land is gained gradual accession from the recess of a river it shall be considered an increment of the tenure of the person to show land or estate it is thus annexed. He has further argued that in such cases there would be no need to extend the provisions of Z.A. Act to such areas and that such areas will not be considered as areas added to the state of U.P. by the action of any river but will be considered as increments of the estates of those tenure-holders before whose estate such accession occurs. The argument appears to be attractive. But on close analysis it does not hold ground. This argument means that though the State Government has never made any notification in respect of such a land it would be deemed that U.P.Z.A. Act applied to the newly accreted area. At the commencement of Z.A. Act the Act was not applicable to the six plots (new accretion) because they were not in existence before or at the time of the act After the new accretion was made it never vested in the State in accordance with Section of the Act because no notification was made in relation to it. At the commencement of Z.A. Act the Act was not applicable to the six plots (new accretion) because they were not in existence before or at the time of the act After the new accretion was made it never vested in the State in accordance with Section of the Act because no notification was made in relation to it. Unless 'vesting' takes place further consequence under Section 6, Z.A. act cannot ensue and in that event no Bhumidhari right can be given to any person under the provision of the Z.A. Act. Thus there is an inherent weakness in this argument. On the one hand it concedes that the U.P.Z.A. act will not apply to new accretions of land unless this Act is extended to that area by means of a State Government notification, and on the other hand it asserts that the provisions of the Z.A. Act will apply to this area with the help of Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Regulation. An argument, which canvasses two in compatible postulates of law at the same time, cannot be accepted. Another reason for not accepting this argument is that application of Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Regulation will result, in certain cases, in repeal of certain provision of the Z.A. Act. In case of conflict between the provision of the Z.A. Act and the provisions of some other law, the provisions of the Z.A. Act will prevail over the provision of the Z.A. Act will prevail over the provisions of others laws. 10. In view of this apparent conflict between the provisions of the Z.A. Ac and those of Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Act the State of U.P. got its legal implications examined by its law department and the U.P. government issued G.O. No. 3841/C-576C/196 dated June 18, 1966. It is true that G.O. cannot make any change in any Act, but we can have the benefit of the opinion of the opinion of experts. The said G.O. is as follows: "Government have therefore got the legal position in this respect re-examined and they have been advised that in dealing with such disputes in areas within Uttar Pradesh, the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act shall prevail without in any way circumscribed by the provisions of Bengal Regulation of 1825. The said G.O. is as follows: "Government have therefore got the legal position in this respect re-examined and they have been advised that in dealing with such disputes in areas within Uttar Pradesh, the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act shall prevail without in any way circumscribed by the provisions of Bengal Regulation of 1825. The position regarding treating land thrown over to the "others side of the river as accretion to contiguous holding, the provision of Bengal Regulations of 1825 is also quite confused and needs clarification. Now after coming in force of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act every inch of the land in the State is identified. The records of rights and annual registers are corrected every year according to the provisions of the Land Records Manual. All Bhumidhars and Sirdars are, under the law entitled to retain exclusive possession of the land included in their holdings Land no included in their holdings has been vested either in the Gaon Sabha or in controlled by other local authorities or Departments of Government. If therefore, the maps of records are properly maintained, it would be possible to identify every inch of land even after village is court through a river. In view of the provisions regarding exclusive possession over the holding by Bhumidhars and Sirdars and the identifiability of the land, there should be no occasion of any tenure-holder claiming any portion of the land as accretion to the holding. In this view of the matter, the provisions of the Bengal Regulations so far as they related to accretion or decrease in the area of the tenure, have by implication, become ineffective." (Paras 1 and 5 of the said G.O.). I fully agree with the views expressed in the Said G.O. The preamble of Bengal Alluvion and Deluivion Regulation shows that these regulations were made for the general information of individuals and for the guidance of courts because 'the land gained from the rivers or sea are a frequent source of contention and affray.' Where the rights of two or more persons, including juristic persons, are in conflict and the law applicable is not clear on the point, help from the Bengal Regulations aforesaid can be taken. But where the law on the subject is clear in question of conflict should arise. U.P.Z.A. Act is a self-contained Act and it makes provisions for almost all eventualities. But where the law on the subject is clear in question of conflict should arise. U.P.Z.A. Act is a self-contained Act and it makes provisions for almost all eventualities. If a land is not in holding of a person, It shall vest in the Gaon Sabha, and others tenure-holders will not gen any rights in such land. 11. The Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Regulations 1825 does not create or give any tenancy rights to a person, in the determining claims to land gained by Alluvion. It is only 'A Regulation for declaring the Rules to be observed or by Dirliction of a River, on the sea. The preamble of the said Regulation says, 'The lands gained from the revers of sea by means above-mentioned are a frequent source of contention and affray, and, although the law and custom of the country have established rules applicable to know, the courts of justice have sometimes found it difficult to determine the rights of litigants parties claiming char or other land the Governor-General-in-Council has deemed it proper to enact the following rules for general information of individual as as well as for guidance of the court of judicature. These regulations do not create new rights, but only enact rules which may guide the courts in case a tenancy inference is that where a Legislature has enacted some specific law on the point, the provisions of Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Regulation cannot override the provisions of specific law on the point, the provision of Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Regulation cannot override the provisions of specific laws like the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 12. It has been argued that Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Regulation will be applicable even to Z.a. Act areas notwithstanding the provisions of the Z.A. Act, the reason being that it has not been repealed by the Z.A. Act. The fact is that the Z.A. Act has neither specifically applied the Bengal Regulation or has repealed it. Section 341 of Z.A. Act has made the provision of the Indian Court Fees Act Code of Civil Procedure and Limitation Act applicable to the proceedings under the act but that is subject to the condition that there are no otherwise express provision made by or under the Z.A. Act. It means that when there are express provisions made by or under the A.Z. Act. It means that when there are express provisions made by or under the A.Z. Act. It means that when there are express provisions made by or order under the Z.A. Act. the contrary provisions of Courts Fees Act, Limitation Act and C.P.C. will not apply. If this is the case with the enactment mentioned in Section 341, Z.A. Act, it can be easily inferred as to hat the Legislature had intended or could intend in case of other of other enactments like Transfer of Property Act, contract Act. Specific Relief Act, Bengal Alluvion and Dilluvion REgulation etc. Any provision of any other central or Pradesh Law, which is inconsistent with the provisions of Z.A. Act, will have to be ignored and the dispute will have to be decided with reference tot he express provisions of the Z.A. Act. 13. It may be here emphasised that Z.A. Act is the only enactment which deals with the tenancy rights of a person is areas in which it is applicable. Limitation act, C.P.C., Courts Fees Act, Specific Relief Act and others enactments deal with collateral matters, and not with tenancy rights. Even in collateral matters the provisions of Z.A. ACt. Section 341 and some others sections of the Z.A. Act have take care to emphasise this fact, Z.A. Act operates in a different field, while other Acts operate in altogether different fields. There is no apparent conflict with the provisions of Z.A. Act and those of there Acts, but whenever a conflict arises the provisions of Z.A. Act will necessarily prevail over the contrary provisions of other enactments. In my opinion there is no inevitable conflict between the provision of Z.A. Act and the provisions of Bengal Regulation. The reason is that Z.A. Act provides for accrual for tenancy right, while Bengal Regulation provides for solving Problems about tenancy right in case where the Z.A. act is silent and where the Z.A. Act has not made any provision. The Z.A. Act is complete in itself as far as tenancy rights are concerned and so the help of rights are concerned and so the help of Bengal Regulation is not needed. The Z.A. Act is complete in itself as far as tenancy rights are concerned and so the help of rights are concerned and so the help of Bengal Regulation is not needed. But if it is be argued that Bengal Regulation creates a tenancy right in certain circumstances, notwithstanding specific provision of the Z.A. Act, it will become a rival of Z.A. Act and will not be allowed to operate in the field covered by the Z.A. Act. The position of law is clear that the Z.A. Act is the only law in respect of tenures in Z.A. Act areas and every other law inconsistent with the provisions of Z.A. Act, will have to be ignored. 14. The aforesaid observations will become more clear when wen go through the scheme of Z.a Act and mark its various stages. First U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was passed for the whole of U.P., barring a few specified areas. Section 2-A of the act name provision for the extension of the Act to new territories and this extension was made dependant on State Governments' notification. Then the second stage is reached when under Section 4 of the Act the estates of notified areas vest in the U.P. State, and it is provided therein that all such estates shall stand transferred to and vest in State of U.P. free from all encumbrances. Then the consequences of the vesting of an estate in the state, as mentioned in Section 6 of the Act ensue. Shorn of unnecessary words and phrases Section 6 of the act provides that. "Notwithstanding anything contained in contract or document or any other law for the time begin in force the following consequences shall ensure, namely: (a) all rights, title and interest of all the intermediaries in every state including land cultivable or barren fisheries, tanks, ponds, water-channels, ferried.... shall ceases and be vested in the state of Uttar Pradesh." This is then Third stage when all the rights of intermediaries is cease completely and vest in the state which becomes its full and absolute master. After that the forth state is reached when the State settles certain land to certain person. Unless this settlement is made or deemed to be made no person can became a Bhumidhar of any estate in a Z.A. Act areas-the question of becoming Bhumidhar is non-Z.A. Act areas does not and cannot arise. After that the forth state is reached when the State settles certain land to certain person. Unless this settlement is made or deemed to be made no person can became a Bhumidhar of any estate in a Z.A. Act areas-the question of becoming Bhumidhar is non-Z.A. Act areas does not and cannot arise. So when a person claimed Bhumidhari right in a land he must show that he land would be deemed to be settled with him by the State of U.P. under this Act. If he fails to prove this settlement under this Act, he cannot become a Bhumidhar. Here in hits case it is admitted case of the plaintiffs, that they cannot claim Bhumidari rights under Section 18 or under any other section of the Z.A. Act. If he cannot become Bhumidahr of the Disputed land under this Act, he cannot become its Bhumidahr by virtue of the provisions of Bengal Alluvion and Deluvion Regulation, because in that case the Bengal Regulation will become a rival and inconsistent enactment which cannot the allowed to override or modify the provisions of the Z.A. Act. 15. Then comes Section 117 of the Z.A. Act. It makes provision for vesting of certain land and other things in the Gaon Sabha. Lands, whether cultivable or otherwise, excepted lands for the time being comprised in any holding or grove shall vest in the Gaon Sabha. in case of accretion mentioned in the Bengal Regulation these cannot be said to be land for the time being comprised in the holding of a contiguous land holder. In the case before us the new accretions had never existed and they were never in the holding of the plaintiffs or other persons. Hence such accretions will vest in the Gaon Sabha and no other person can be allowed to grave it. It is public property to be held by the Gaon Sabha for the use of the public. if the Bengal Regulation makes a provision that such land will be deemed to be an accretion to the land of a tenant before whose plots it accretes and will belong to him, this provision is certainly inconsistent with the provisions of Section 117 of the Z.A. Act, and will therefore be ignored. if the Bengal Regulation makes a provision that such land will be deemed to be an accretion to the land of a tenant before whose plots it accretes and will belong to him, this provision is certainly inconsistent with the provisions of Section 117 of the Z.A. Act, and will therefore be ignored. The provisions of Section 117 of the Z.A. Act creates a right in the Gaon Sabha in respect of such accretions and in such case there can be no doubt about title to such a land. The courts of law will decide the controversy with reference to Section 117 of the Z.A. Act and will not be in need to look of guidance to the Bengal Regulation 1825. 16. Wajib-ul-Arz has also to be ignored on the same grounds. Wajib-ul-Arz mentions local customs and usage. Where an act is clear there is no occasion to look into local customs and usages are of help in cases where the law is silent or where the law itself provides that a matter be decided by reference to local customs and usages. Z.A. Act is not silent regarding rights in such land not it recognises any custom or usage regarding matters for which it has made specific provisions. Section 6 of the Act has laid down that certain consequences (vesting in the State and extinction of rights of intermediaries) shall ensue notwithstanding any thing contained in any contract, or document or in any other law for the time being in force. after the vesting the State of U.P. will become absolute owner of such land and thereafter such land will be deemed to be settled with the Gaon Sabha in Accordance wit the provisions of Section 117 of the Z.A. Act. In view of this Regulation and the Wajid-ul-Arz both shall have to be ignored. 17. There is yet another ground for the non-application of Bengal Regulation. It has been shown that according to Section 117, Z.A. Act new accretions, by action of rivers, will vest in the Gaon Sabha. According to Section 195 Z.A. Act the Gaon Sabha can let out such land to needy and deserving persons. The Gaon Sabha can also such land under Section 195 to 209, Z.A. Act. Chapter VIII of the Z.A. Act. According to Section 195 Z.A. Act the Gaon Sabha can let out such land to needy and deserving persons. The Gaon Sabha can also such land under Section 195 to 209, Z.A. Act. Chapter VIII of the Z.A. Act. If it si held that order person, that in owners of land contiguous to the new accretions, become Bhumidhar of Sirdar of such land the Gaon Sabha will not be able to let out such land under Section 195 or to file a suit under Section 209 of the Act in respect of this land, that ins, it would be deprived f its valuable rights in such land by virtue of the Bengal Regulation. Then Bengal Regulation will become inconsistent with the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Act. If such a situation arises of the provision of Bengal Regulations, as far as it crates the aforesaid inconsistency, will be deemed to have repealed. Section 339(2) of the Z.A. Act lays down that, with effect from the date of vesting in respect of any area so much of any other enactment as is consistent with provisions of Chapter VIII to X of this Act shall be deemed and is hereby repealed in its application to such areas.... 18. In view of this clear position of law other points, which has earlier cropped up in this case, do not survive. But they have to be discussed by this court because the learned High Court has directed this court to discuss the. Discussion about Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Regulation and the relevancy of Wajib-ul-Arz has already been done. As regards gradually accretion of land there is abundant evidence on the record that the new land has gradually accreted. Both the parties have admitted that fact. Therefore, I hold that that land in river Rapti. Now remains the interpretation of share Wajid-ul-Arz. The relevant shart, that ins, contract or condition is Yah Ik Mauza Haza men Dariay Rapti Karib Hai Agar Gang Shikast wa Gang-barar hoga to Sarkar men Ittilai Karange Agar Das Bigha se fee Saikada Jyada Gang barar Hoge.' This condition mentioned in the short Wajib-ul-Arz is, to my mind, easy to comprehend. If the accretion is more than ten percent. of the total area of the village, the matter shall be reported to the government for its settlement. If the accretion is more than ten percent. of the total area of the village, the matter shall be reported to the government for its settlement. But in this case, as I have discussed in para 15 of this judgment, no advantage can be gained by the plaintiff-appellants by this condition in this document. After the coming into force of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act the whose position has completely changed, Section 6 (1) of the Z.A. act has categorically proved that notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or document or in any other law the rights, title and interest of all intermediaries shall cease, and these right, till the interest shall vest in the U.P. State. After happening of this event, the and shall be settled according to the provisions of the Act by the State, and not according to the provisions of any other law. Section 171 of the Act has already made a provision that all land, no included in any holding or grove, shall vest in the Gaon Sabha. In view of this clear provision in the Z.A. Act nothing remains to be resolved with the help of any other law, including the Bengal resolution or shart Wajid-ul-Arz. 19. Now we may conclude(1) If the Z.A. Act does not apply to the land in suit (accretions) by reason of the fact that the Act has not been extended to that areas by State Government notification, Bhumidari rights cannot be claimed in the disputed plots. Bhumidhari rights are creation of the Z.A. Act. When the Act itself has not been extended to an area, no Bhumidhari rights can secure to any one in such an area. Then no suit under Section 229-B, Z.A. Act, will be maintained in para 3 of this judgment shall vest in the State of U.P. and will be deemed to have been settled with the Gaon Sabha by virtue of Section 1l7 of the act notwithstanding any contract, document of any other law. In any of these two events to any right, title or interest in these disputed plots. The plaintiffs-appellant have no concern with the land in suit and their suit for declaration was rightly dismissed by the learned courts below. 20. I accordingly dismiss this second appeal with costs and Rs. 100/- as counsel's fees.