JUDGMENT : B.L. YADAV, J. 1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, arises out of the order dated 26th September, 1984 passed by the Additional Commissioner Meerut and the order dated 21st January, 1984 passed by the Naib-Tahsildar in a proceeding u/s 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Learned Counsel for the Petitioner was heard at great length and I have dismissed the writ petition summarily by order dated 23rd April, 1985. But before the order could be signed, learned Counsel, for the Petitioner placed reliance on Ram Diya v. Goan Samaj 1963 RD 34 a Single Judge decision of this Court. The learned Counsel insisted that this case may be considered and a reference may be made in the order. I am, therefore, giving this detailed order. 2. A notice under UP ZA Form 49-ka was served en the Petitioner indicating that he has unlawfully occupied plot No. 318 area 0-4-0 (1600 sq. yard). It was alleged that the Petitioner has placed Kuri etc. without any right over the land and the land has actually vested in the Gaon Sabha. This notice was opposed by the Petitioner, who filed an objection alleging that it was not the Gaon Sabha land, rather he was using it for keeping Kuri and as using the land as Kolhu and the notice may be discharged. 3. The parties led evidence and the Naib-Tahsildar by his order dated 12th January, 1984 (Annexure-2), directed the Petitioner to be ejected and further directed him to pay damages. It was held that the land in dispute was the Gaon Sabha land and that the land does not belong to the Petitioner nor he has any right to place Kuri or Kolhu over the area pointed out in the notice under ZA Form 49-ka. It was not held that the Petitioner was Bhumidhar or Sirdar of the land in dispute and he was using the land u/s 7(aa) of the Act. This order was confirmed in the revision. 4. In Ram Diya v. Gram Samaj (supra) the Plaintiff was held to be Bhumidhar by the court below in the suit for injunction filed by the Plaintiff-Appellant against the Gaon Sabha with a prayer to restrain the Gaon Sabha from interfering with the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff. This order was confirmed in the revision. 4. In Ram Diya v. Gram Samaj (supra) the Plaintiff was held to be Bhumidhar by the court below in the suit for injunction filed by the Plaintiff-Appellant against the Gaon Sabha with a prayer to restrain the Gaon Sabha from interfering with the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff. But it was held that the Plaintiff was not entitled to the benefit of Section 7(aa) of the Act. On these facts it was held that as the Plaintiff was held to be Bhumidar and it was also found by the courts below that the Plaintiff was using the land in dispute for keeping Kuri and Kolhu, hence the Plaintiff-Appellant was held by this Court to be entitled to the benefit of Section 7(aa) of the Act. The statutory provisions of Section 7(aa) of the Act are set out below: 7(aa). being a bhumidhar, sirdar, adhivasi or asami of any land, to continue to enjoy an easement or any similar right for the more beneficial enjoyment of the land, as he was enjoying on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting. 5. From a bare reading of Section 7(aa) of the Act it does appear that to claim the benefit of the Section so as to be entitled to the exemption from Chapter II (i.e. acquisition of the interest of intermediaries and its consequences) of the Act the person must be a Bhumidhar and the second condition is that the person must continue to enjoy any easement or any similar right for more beneficial enjoyment of the land. In this case as the Petitioner is not Bhumidhar or Sirdar hence be cannot get benefit of second condition even if he might be keeping Kuri or Kolhu. Further it is clear that the enjoyment of right of easement must be on the date of vesting. 6. In the instant case the findings are that the Petitioner was using the land of the Gaon Sabha without any right or interest and the Petitioner having trespassed over the land in dispute was liable to ejectment and pay damages. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has assumed some facts and findings in his favour, which were in fact conspicuous by their absence. 7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has assumed some facts and findings in his favour, which were in fact conspicuous by their absence. 7. In the present case it has not been found that the Petitioner was Bhumidhar nor it has been found that the Petitioner was using the land in dispute for keeping Kuri and Kolhu on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting. If that could have been the finding, the land could not vest in the Gaon Sabha and the Petitioner would have been certainly entitled to the benefit of Section 7(aa) of the Act On the basis of evidence on record it has been held that the Petitioner was not a Bhumidhar nor he has any right over the land in dispute rather it was the land of the Gaon Sabha and without any right or authority the Petitioner was keeping Kolhu and Kuri etc. over the same. The Petitioner was, therefore, liable to ejectment and was liable to pay damages. 8. In view of the discussions made hereinbefore, the writ petition lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed summarily.