JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This revision is directed against the order passed by Sri R.R. Singh, Additional commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, dated December 20, 1978. 2. It appears that the revisionist moved an application under Section 198(4) of U.P. Act 1 of 1951 against the opposite party, alleging that plots Nos. 126 (1-10-16), 303 (1-1-5). 410 (1-10-9). 411 (0-19-0) and 413 (7-6-2), belonged to the applicant's maternal uncle, Hira Lal, which vested in Gaon Sabha by order of Tahsildar dated August 8, 1975, that the applicant-revisionist lost the case in the High Court also that by ordered dated February 4, 1962 passed by the Consolidation Officer in case No. 397 the land was recorded in the name of School, that possession of the applicant-revisionist was recorded under class 9 in respect of plots Nos. 303, 413, 410, 411, 126, that the possession of the revisionist was there on the land in dispute and on that ground the revisionist claimed that the land was not vacant and, hence, the lease executed in favour of the school was irregular and should be called. The learned Additional Collector held that the claim of revisionist had not basis and also the possession of the revisionist was not there at the time of the allotment and that the land was vacant and belonged to Gaon Sabha at the time of allotment. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the view of the learned Additional Commissioner that proceedings were barred by Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act was not proper and that possession of the revisionist belonged to the Scheduled Caste and benefit of Section 122-B (40F) of Act 1 of 1951 should be given to him. Against this, the learned counsel for the opposite party submits that proceedings are not barred under Section 49 C.H. Act and there was nothing to indicate that the revisionist belonged to Scheduled Caste, and hence, he could have no rights in the land in dispute, and that the lease was granted in favour of the School earlier and as such no rights could accrue to the revisionist. 5. I find that the learned Additional Commissioner says that the claim of the revisionist was barred by Section 49 C.H. Act. 5. I find that the learned Additional Commissioner says that the claim of the revisionist was barred by Section 49 C.H. Act. It appears that he had in his mind that he was dealing with a suit under Section 229-B. I find that proceedings under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act, and as such I do not agree with the view of the learned Additional Commissioner in this respect. The learned Additional Collector has held that the revisionist was not in possession of the land in dispute and, hence the benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) could not accrue to the revisionist. The land belonged to Gaon Sabha and as such the Gaon Sabha or the Land Management Committee had every right to allot the land to the school. With these observations, this revision falls and is hereby dismissed.