JUDGMENT R.S. Verma, Member (J.)- This Full Bench has been constituted to answer the following question referred by Shri Kaushal Kishore, learned Judicial Member :- "If trees of a person exist on the Gaon Sabha land, whether the Gaon Sabha can eject that person from the land for the purpose of utilising the land for any work of public utility or for allotment to any person ?" 2. It has been assumed that trees standing on Gaon Sabha land can belong to any other person than the Gaon Sabha. To answer the referred question according to the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act we think that we must enquire, first, whether it is at all a tenable proposition of law that trees standing on Gaon Sabha land can be held to be the property of any person except the Gaon Sabha ? If a person claims any land or property attached to a land in a Z.A. area he must show some provision in the Z.A. Act which gives him the rights claimed by him. If he fails to show that provision, he cannot succeed in his claim. So we asked the learned counsel of the revisionist to tell us the specific provision which can entitle a person to claim ownership rights over the trees standing on Gaon Sabha land. The learned counsel said that section 9 of the Z.A. Act is the provision relevant for deciding ownership rights in trees. We think that section 9 of the Act does not help him. Shorn of unnecessary words and phrases section 9 of the Act lays down that:- "...........trees in abadi...........situate within the limits of an estate belonging to or held by an intermediary or tenant or other person.......shall continue to belong to or be held by such intermediary, tenant or person." For application of section 9 of the Act three conditions are necessary, that is, (1) the trees must be in abadi, (2) the abadi must be within the limits of an estate and (3), the estate must belong to an intermediary, tenant or other person. Gaon Sabha land cannot be considered to be the estate of an intermediary, tenant or other person. Therefore trees standing on Gaon Sabha land cannot belong to any other person than the Gaon Sabha. Gaon Sabha land cannot be considered to be the estate of an intermediary, tenant or other person. Therefore trees standing on Gaon Sabha land cannot belong to any other person than the Gaon Sabha. In this context it would be apt to refer to a ruling, reported in 1981 (2) R.D., 251, given by one of us (Shri P.C. Saxena) in which it was held that: "Learned counsel for the revisionist has cited rulings of the Board of Revenue reported in 1976 R.D. 160 and 1978 R.D. 29 in support of his contention that there can be no presumption that a tree standing on Gaon Sabha land is the property of the Gaon Sabha. With all respect, I find myself unable to agree with the view taken by the learned Members in the rulings cited. Where land belongs to a party, there is a legal presumption that any tree standing thereon belongs to that very party. In the present instance, the claim that ancestors of revisionists had planted the tree would not by itself lead to the conclusion that he is the owner of the tree." We find ourselves in agreement with the view taken in this ruling because it is in consonance with the statute law on the subject. We will try to show presently the relevant law about ownership of trees standing on various kinds of land in a Z.A. Area. 3. U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is the only statute on the subject and it supercedes all other tenancy laws and other laws which are inconsistent with its provisions. Section 4 of the Act lays down that at the coming in force of this Act all estates situate in Uttar Pradesh shall vest in the State free from all encumbrances. Thus after the enforcement of the Act the State of Uttar Pradesh has become the absolute owner of all estates and this ownership of the State is free from all encumbrances. This section 4 of the Act is in itself sufficient to extinguish all rights of intermediaries and tenants, trespassers and the like in every estate situate in zamindari-abolition-area. However the Legislature did not rest content with only that. It enacted section 6 of the Act and mentioned in detail the consequences which will cause after the date of vesting. This section 4 of the Act is in itself sufficient to extinguish all rights of intermediaries and tenants, trespassers and the like in every estate situate in zamindari-abolition-area. However the Legislature did not rest content with only that. It enacted section 6 of the Act and mentioned in detail the consequences which will cause after the date of vesting. Section 6 provides, inter alia, that, "Notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or document or any other law for the time being in force, all rights, title and interest of the intermediaries in trees (other than trees in village abadi, holding or grove) shall cease and be vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh free from all encumbrances." In other words no person can claim any antecedent right, title and interest in trees, after the date of vesting unless the tree is either in his abadi, or in his holding, or on the boundary of his holding or in his grove. If the trees are not standing on the four specified areas, mentioned above, no person can get any right, title or interest in those trees. If the trees are standing on Gaon Sabha land no person can get any right, title and interest in such trees. 4. Then section 117 of the Act makes the position more clear. Section 117 (1) (iii) lays down that, "trees, other than trees in a holding or on the boundary of a holding or in grove or abadi, which had vested in the State under this Act, shall vest in Gaon Sabha or any other local authority concerned." Thus the statute law on the point is very simple and clear. It is an established law that the provisions of a statute will prevail, and that if the provision of a statute is clear, the courts of law will have to apply those provisions to a given situation, without being guided or swayed by any extraneous circumstances. Contrary rulings of the courts cannot over-ride the provisions of a statute. It is indisputable that statute is the best source of law; and so a necessary inference from it is that when statute law is there and it is clear and unambiguous, other sources of law, that is precedents, customs, usages, reasonings, equity etc. must take a back seat. 5. It is indisputable that statute is the best source of law; and so a necessary inference from it is that when statute law is there and it is clear and unambiguous, other sources of law, that is precedents, customs, usages, reasonings, equity etc. must take a back seat. 5. But the learned counsel of the revisionist realising that statute law is clearly against his client, cited rulings of this Board in support of his contention. The first ruling cited by him is 1976 R.D., 160, Mohammad Hanif v. The Gaon Sabha. This ruling was given by Shri S.S. Ahmad, learned Judicial Member of this Board. This is the first ruling given by this Board on this point. Without any prior discussion the learned Member Shri S.S. Ahmad said that, "It is an accepted principle both under the U. P. Tenancy Act and U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act that the trees planted anywhere will be considered to be the property of the cultivator who planted it." We are not here concerned as to what was the position of law with regard to trees under the U.P. Tenancy Act. But under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act it cannot be said that this is an accepted principle of law. He had to show where such principle of law was accepted under the Z.A. Act and by whom it was accepted. This was not done by the learned Member. Hence the presumption made by him had no basis at all. Its basis was neither statute nor precedent nor rule or regulation. It was just his personal opinion and will not be binding. It may be that under the U.P. Tenancy Act it was an accepted principle of law, but we must keep in mind that the U.P.Z.A. Act has repealed the U.P. Tenancy Act and hence any accepted principle of law under the U.P. Tenancy Act will not be deemed to be 'accepted principle of law' under the Z.A. Act. The learned Member was perhaps conscious of this fact and so he referred to section 117 of the Z.A. Act in which it was laid down that trees, other than trees in a holding, or on the boundary of a holding or in grove or abadi shall vest in the Gaon Sabha. The learned Member was perhaps conscious of this fact and so he referred to section 117 of the Z.A. Act in which it was laid down that trees, other than trees in a holding, or on the boundary of a holding or in grove or abadi shall vest in the Gaon Sabha. This section is clear that trees, which are not in holding or on the boundary of a holding or in a grove or in abadi, shall vest in the Gaon Sabha. In spite of this clear provision the learned Member, without any further discussion held that. "Thus the tree planted on Gaon Sabha land do not necessarily vest in the Gaon Sabha." This inference drawn by the learned Member from Section 117, Z.A. Act is definitely and unmistakably against the provisions of section 117 of the Act, but the learned Member has a attempted to give an impression that his observation is a logical deduction from the provisions of section 117, Z.A. Act. We may say here that this observation of the learned Member is clearly contrary to the provisions of sections 4, 6 and 117 of the U.P.Z.A. Act. Tested on the touch-stone of statute and reasoning this ruling (1976 R.D. 160 Mohammad Hanif v. Gaon Sabha) lays down a wrong law. Hence we over-rule this ruling. 6. The second ruling is 1978 R.D., 29 : 1977 A.W.C. (Revenue) 124, Suraj Din v. Gaon Sabha which has been given by Shri M.P. Pandey, learned Judicial Member. He said that, "It has been urged on behalf of the opposite-party-revisionist that even if he has no claim over the disputed area, because he is not recorded as tenant on that either before the abolition or afterwards, he certainly has a claim over tree and, he should, on this mere account cannot be ejected therefrom. There is some force in this argument. Even Lekhpal and Pradhan themselves say that tree belongs to opposite party and he has been gathering its fruits. It will have to be taken that he is the owner of the tree. It would, therefore, be not proper to eject him from the tree or area covered by tree. I am supported in this by 1976 RD, 160 Mohammad Hanif v. Gaon Sabha. It will have to be taken that he is the owner of the tree. It would, therefore, be not proper to eject him from the tree or area covered by tree. I am supported in this by 1976 RD, 160 Mohammad Hanif v. Gaon Sabha. As this ruling is based on 1976 RD, 160 Mohammad Hanif v. Gaon Sabha it is wrong for exactly the same reasons which we have mentioned while overruling 1976 RD 160. We mark that in 1978 RD, 29 : 1977 AWC (Revenue) 124, Shri M.P. Pandey, learned Member has widened the law laid down in 1976 R.D., 160. In 1976 RD, 160, Shri S.S. Ahmed learned Member had held that "the trees planted anywhere will be considered to be the property of cultivator who planted it,' Shri M.P. Pandey, learned Member held that the planter of tree cannot be ejected from the tree or area covered by the tree. Then someone will carry this argument one step forward and will say that the said planter of tree will become the owner of the area covered by the tree and that he can use that area to build a hut or a house or a temple as he likes. It can further be said that the planter of the tree will become owner of that area of the Gaon Sabha land and will have the right to transfer it. One wrong assumption will logically lead to a series of wrong assumptions and there will be no end to it. The result would be that the rightful owner, that is the Gaon Sabha, will lose all its rights in the trees and also the area covered by the trees. The law laid down by Shri M.P. Pandey, learned Member is against the provisions of the Z.A. Act. We, therefore, over-rule 1978 RD, 29 : 1977 AWC (Revenue) 124, Suraj Din v. Gaon Sabha. 7. Though not cited by the learned counsel of the revisionist, we have come across another ruling of this Board reported in 1982 RD, 377. It was given by one of us (R.S. Verma Member). We, therefore, over-rule 1978 RD, 29 : 1977 AWC (Revenue) 124, Suraj Din v. Gaon Sabha. 7. Though not cited by the learned counsel of the revisionist, we have come across another ruling of this Board reported in 1982 RD, 377. It was given by one of us (R.S. Verma Member). Therein it was observed as follows :- "He has objected against his ejectment on the ground that as his trees are standing on land in suit and he is ejected from that land, he will not have any access to the fruits of the trees or to any other enjoyment of the trees which obviously, belonged to him. He has cited 1981 RD, 15, 1978 RD 29 and 1976 RD 160............If a person is owner of trees, standing on Gaon Sabha land, it is clear that it will not vest in the Gaon Sabha and he will have a right to those trees. If his rights as owner of the trees subsists he cannot obviously be ordered to refrain from enjoying the fruits and other benefits of those trees. This is what was held in the rulings 1976 RD 160 and 1978 RD, 29. There can be no dispute regarding the principles evolved in those rulings, but the question here is whether by planting trees on Gaon Sabha land in the period of Van-Mahotsava the revisionist will be held to be the owner of those trees............I think that the revisionist, Suraj Bali, did not acquire and he could not acquire any ownership rights in the trees planted by him on Gaon Sabha land with the permission of the Gaon Sabha Pradhan in the period when there was a drive for planting trees on public land and on road-sides." As far as the observations (here underlined) of mine are concerned they were uncalled for and are obiter-dicta. They are based on 1976 RD, 160 and 1978 RD, 29 : 1977 AWC (Revenue) 124 ; and hence they are wrong. They are against the statute law; and hence they are wrong. They are uncritical assumptions made without reasoning ; and hence they are wrong. These observations (here underlined above) suffer from all the infirmities which we have mentioned while discussing the legal implications of 1976 RD 160. They are against the statute law; and hence they are wrong. They are uncritical assumptions made without reasoning ; and hence they are wrong. These observations (here underlined above) suffer from all the infirmities which we have mentioned while discussing the legal implications of 1976 RD 160. We therefore over-rule the ruling RD 1982, page 377, Suraj Bali v. Gaon Sabha, given by one of us, that is, R.S. Verma, Judicial Member, but we over-rule only that part which was based on 1976 RD, 160 and 1978 RD 29 ; 1977 AWC (Revenue) 124 and which was uncalled for and was obiter-dicta. We approve the real decision where it was held that, "Persons, who plant trees or flowers on public property like Gaon Sabha land, or Government land or important places like Rajghat, Shantivan, etc., will not be allowed to claim property rights on the trees or flowers planted by them." 8. Our view, based on the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, is that trees standing on Gaon Sabha land, whether planted by a person before the abolition of zamindari or after the abolition of zamindari and whether planted by him with the permission of the zamindar or the Gaon Sabha or without their permission, will vest in the Gaon Sabha and that the planter of the trees will have no rights, title and interest in such trees, or under the area covered by those trees. Now a question arises, as it arose in the case 1982 RD, 377, Suraj Bali v. Gaon Sabha. It can be argued that our view may be correct as far as it deals with the position of law at the point of time when zamindari system was abolished, but how can it be said that after the abolition of zamindari persons planting trees on Gaon Sabha land without permission will not get rights in the trees by adverse possession or persons planting trees, with the permission of the Gaon Sabha and also because of fervent appeals made by Gaon Sabha and the U.P. State, will not get interests in the trees planted by them. As far as trespassers over Gaon Sabha land and property attached to the Gaon Sabha land are concerned section 210 of the Z.A. Act is the answer. As far as trespassers over Gaon Sabha land and property attached to the Gaon Sabha land are concerned section 210 of the Z.A. Act is the answer. No trespasser will get rights in Gaon Sabha land and property attached to the land by any number of years in which he remains in unlawful possession. Without any discussion on this point we will refer to 1979 R.D., 226 High Court in which Mr. Justice K.P. Singh said." In view of the recent amendment made in the provisions of sections 209 and 210 ... even if the petitioner is in possession over the property of Gaon Sabha for 12 years he would not acquire sirdari rights in the disputed land. The petitioner lost his sirdari rights due to retrospective operation of the provisions of section 15 of U.P. Act No. 35 of 1976 and that right does not revive due to later amendment affected in the aforesaid section by section 49 of U.P. Act No. 8 of 1977." Now remains to be discussed the status of a person who plants trees on Gaon Sabha land with the permission of the Gaon Sabha. Here two things must be kept in mind. First the Gaon Sabha is a statutory juristic person. It is bound and circumscribed by the statute and relevant rules and regulations. It has no power to act beyond its given authority; and if it acts beyond its statutory scope its acts shall become ultra vires and can be challenged by the State or any member of the Gaon Sabha. Suppose the L.M.C., which is the executive body of the Gaon Sabha as far as management of land is concerned, unanimously distributes all the Gaon Sabha land amongst its own members or amongst some favourites, its acts will become at once illegal. The second thing to be kept in mind is that the Gaon Sabha is not like other persons but that it is a public body in which every person residing within the limits of that Gaon Sabha has a vested right. Even persons, yet to be born, have got an interest in the property owned by the Gaon Sabha. In a sense it can be termed as indeterminate juristic person in which the membership constantly and continuously changes with deaths and births. So it has an accountability not only to the present generation but also to the future generation. Even persons, yet to be born, have got an interest in the property owned by the Gaon Sabha. In a sense it can be termed as indeterminate juristic person in which the membership constantly and continuously changes with deaths and births. So it has an accountability not only to the present generation but also to the future generation. In this context, it cannot act beyond its statutory scope and it cannot also make illegal and unjust commitments to the detriment of its own interests. So when the Gaon Sabha gives permission to any person to plant trees or flowers on its land the predominant consideration must always be the benefit accruing to the public body, that is the Gaon Sabha and not the predominance of private interests against the interests of the Gaon Sabha. Beautification of public places, maintenance of ecological balance in its atmosphere and supply of public utility has nowadays prompted the Government and other local authorities to seek co-operation of the general public in planting of fruit trees or fuel trees on public land. If some people respond to the appeals made by the Government and the local authorities and plant tree and flowers on public land during Van-Mahotsava and other similar drives or do 'shra-madaan' and construct roads and some structures on public land it will always be considered in law and equity that they have done so keeping the over-all public good in consideration. The good of all includes the good of the individuals also who constitute that 'all'. On these grounds persons, who plant trees or flowers on public land or who construct roads, bandhs, culverts etc., on public land cannot be allowed subsequently to claim proprietory rights in the things planted by them or the things constructed by them. Otherwise after sometime every public property, or most of it, will be grabbed by clever and strong persons and the general public, (poor inarticulate and unorganised) will suffer grievously. That is why the Supreme Court of India in A.I.R. 1979, Supreme Court 621 laid down that, "But it is necessary to point out that since the doctrine of 'promissory estoppel' is an equitable doctrine, it must yield when the equity so requires...... That is why the Supreme Court of India in A.I.R. 1979, Supreme Court 621 laid down that, "But it is necessary to point out that since the doctrine of 'promissory estoppel' is an equitable doctrine, it must yield when the equity so requires...... The doctrine of promissory estoppel would be displaced in such a case because, on the facts, equity would not require that the Government shall be held bound by the promise made by it." This doctrine of promissory estoppel was further explained by the Supreme Court in A I.R. 1980 S.C. 768 and A.I.R. 1980 S.C., 1285. The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot, be enforced against juristic persons, especially ones like, the State, the Government, the Gaon Sabhas or local authorities or public sector corporations, if these juristic persons act beyond their power and make promises to others against the interests of the juristic persons. So if a Gaon Sabha invites a person to plant trees on Gaon Sabha land or to construct roads, culverts, bandh etc. on Gaon Sabha land and even if it makes some illegal promises it cannot be estopped from denying the ownership rights of the planters of trees or the builders of roads, bandhs, culverts etc. Rights and interests in Gaon Sabha lands can be claimed only under the Z.A. & L.R. Act or under rules and regulations framed under the Z.A. Act. The U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and the rules framed thereunder nowhere provide that trees planted by a person on Gaon Sabha land will or can become his property. It nowhere provides that areas covered by trees planted by a person on Gaon Sabha land will belong to that person. 9. In view of this discussion of the relevant law on the point we are in a position to give answer to the question referred to us. Where trees planted by a person stand on Gaon Sabha land, the Gaon Sabha can eject that person from that Gaon Sabha land for utilising the land for any work of public utility or for allotment to any person, because the planter of trees on Gaon Sabha land can neither be considered as owner of those trees or of the land covered by those trees. Gaon Sabha land will remain the property of the Gaon Sabha. 10. With this answer, we return the file to the learned Member having jurisdiction.