JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a second appeal under Section 331 of Act I of 1961 against the judgment and decree of Addl. Commissioner dated May 6, 1976 through which the appeal filed against the judgment and decree of S.D.O. Roorkee, Saharanpur dated December 23, 1975 was dismissed. 2. The facts of this case in brief are that the appellant brought a suit under section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act in respect of plot No. 208/1 area 1 Bigha 7 Biswa and claimed to be declared Sirdar on the basis of his possession for more than 12 years thereon. 3. The suit was contested by the Gaon Sabha on the ground that the plaintiff had no title and that his possession on the land had been for merely 2 or 3 years and that the land was Gaon Sabha property and no title could accrue to the plaintiff. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. The appeal filed against the decree was also dismissed, hence this second appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that even though there is entry of pasture land in respect of plot in dispute but it is not being used a customary pasture land hence the Gaon Sabha had no right to eject the plaintiff and he preferred a ruling reported in 1978 R.D. 210. 6. I have carefully gone through this ruling and I find that it does not apply at all to the instant case for two reasons firstly that it is a suit brought by the appellant and not by the Gaon Sabha and that these are no proceedings for the ejectment of the appellant under section 212-A of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. So this ruling of appellant is no help to the appellant. However admittedly the village has gone under consolidation operation and the disputed land has been recorded as pasture land during the consolidation proceeding. In any case the land belongs to the Gaon Sabha and, therefore, no title by adverse possession on such land can accrue to any person or any trespasser. The plaintiff could not prove his possession in any year prior to Zamindari Abolition. Further he did not asset his title during the consolidation operation, hence his claim is now barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. The plaintiff could not prove his possession in any year prior to Zamindari Abolition. Further he did not asset his title during the consolidation operation, hence his claim is now barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. Even if it is held that he is in possession of the land he would be deemed to be merely a trespasser liable to ejectment at the instance of the Gaon Sabha. His suit was therefore, rightly dismissed. The appeal was also dismissed. This appeal also has no force and is dismissed.