JUDGMENT V.P. Singh, Member - This is a revision against the order of the learned Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, in an appeal arising out of a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Durga Prasad, plaintiff, instituted an suit claiming rights over Gaon Sabha land by adverse possession. The suit was contested by the State of U.P. on the ground that no Sirdari rights would accrue to the plaintiff on the Gaon Sabha land by virtue of his adverse possession. The trial court held that in view of the amendment introduced in Section 210 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act no rights could be perfected by trespasser on a Gaon Sabha land. It accordingly dismissed the suit. The learned Additional Commissioner maintained the order of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Against this order the present revision has been filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. It has been argued on behalf of the revisionist that since the cause of action arose to the revisionist after the close of consolidation hence the bar of Section 49 C.H. Act does not arise. He contended that it was the duty of the Gaon Sabha to prove his right over the land in dispute on the date of vesting as the case of the revisionist was that he became Sirdar of the land in suit prior to the abolition of Zamindari. He referred to R.J. 1981 page 220 in support of his arguments. The learned D.G.C. (R.) has supported the orders of the courts below. 4. From the perusal of the record it is obvious that during the trial court of the suit the trial court framed 5 issues. Issue No. 4 was to the effect whether the suit of the plaintiff could proceed under the amended provisions of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. This was treated as a preliminary issue and decided as such. The trial court held that the amendment introduced in Section 210 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act had retrospective effect and that no rights could accrue to the plaintiff on Gaon Sabha land by virtue of his possession of any duration. The learned Additional Commissioner agreed with this view. The trial court held that the amendment introduced in Section 210 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act had retrospective effect and that no rights could accrue to the plaintiff on Gaon Sabha land by virtue of his possession of any duration. The learned Additional Commissioner agreed with this view. The legal position as it stood even today is that the amendment of Section 210 applies retrospectively. No rights would accrue to the plaintiff on Gaon Sabha land even if he was in possession from before the date of vesting. The view taken by the courts below is perfectly legal and correct and calls for no interference in revision. The question whether the claim of the plaintiff was barred by Section 49 C.H. Act or not does not appear to have been adjudicated by the courts below, perhaps because of the fact that the suit was disposed of on a finding recorded on an issued decided as a preliminary one. The present revision has got no force and is dismissed.