JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - In this reference dated 26-2-1977, the learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut, has recommended that the ejectment order of the learned trial court and the order of damages may be set aside in respect of plot nos. 2517/0-15-0 and 2518 Min/1-0-0 and may be maintained only in respect of remaining area plot no. 2518 Min/1-0-0. This is based on the application of res-judicata in view of earlier order dated 30-11-1968 passed under Section 122-B of the UPZA & LR Act in respect of plot nos. 2517/0-5-0 and 2518 Min/1-0-0, dropping the proceedings holding that the land was not Gaon Sabha land. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 3. The judgment dated 30-11-1968 is on the record. From perusal of this judgment it is seen that the learned trial court dropped the proceedings after observation that from extracts of the land records of 1358 and 1359-F it appeared that the land in plot numbers 2517 and 2518 was not Gaon Sabha property but of temple of Mahadev. This order does not refer to any khatauni entries of 1375-F or 1376-F. Admittedly, chakbandi had been held in 1968. So, when the land was recorded as Gaon Sabha land after chakbandi and Nakli recorded in varg-4 from 1375-F, prima facie the land was Gaon Sabha land. The learned trial court proceeding u/s 122-B of the Act and in passing order dated 30-11-1968 had obviously exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction and had decided against the chakbandi records that the land was not Gaon Sabha land when prima facie it was Gaon Sabha land and the claim of any waqf was barred u/s 49 of the UPCH Act, therefore, such decision was obiter-dicta and could not be said to act as res-judicata. 4. The court while proceeding u/s 122-B of the Act has a limited jurisdiction for summary proceedings for ejectment from the Gaon Sabha or local body property and to charge damages. There is no jurisdiction to decide title. Section 122-B (4-B) of the Act makes it clear. As soon as a bona fide question of title is raised, the court has to stop the proceedings and afford opportunity so that the opposite party may get its title declared by a competent court. This negation of jurisdiction is not half way. There is no jurisdiction to decide title. Section 122-B (4-B) of the Act makes it clear. As soon as a bona fide question of title is raised, the court has to stop the proceedings and afford opportunity so that the opposite party may get its title declared by a competent court. This negation of jurisdiction is not half way. Whether it is title of the opposite party or of the Gaon Sabha in dispute, the learned trial court under Section 122-B of the Act cannot decide it. For a private party it is decided u/s 229-B and for the Gaon Sabha it is decided u/s 229. Therefore, any finding without jurisdiction is no decision and cannot act as res-judicata. 5. The learned Additional Commissioner has overlooked the fact that in chakbandi no rights of Nakli were decided on the two plots. Even in his written statement dated 13-3-1976, Nakli stated that Hari Prakash was the Manager of the waqf Temple Mahadev, that for 2 years he was not even looking after this property on behalf of Hari Prakash. If so, he could have no objection to ejectment order. But the learned trial court found that no land was earmarked for the temple in chakbandi and the opposite party under the garb of temple property wanted to use it for himself. The contest by the opposite party even by the daughter of Nakli who has sought and been allowed substitution shows that they are in possession and the learned trial court based his finding of possession of the opposite party on the land on the evidence of lekhpal finding cultivatory possession of the revisionist. 6. In view of the above, I find no application of res-judicata and no illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned trial court. There is no justification to accept the reference and the revision petition is accordingly dismissed with costs.