Judgment N.P.Singh, J. 1. The State of Bihar has filed this Civil Revision Application for setting aside an order dated 29-9-1983 passed in Execution Case No. 14 of 1981 by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Motihari, rejecting a petition filed on behalf of the State of Bihar for restraining the Receiver from taking steps for settlement of Mela and Bazar held on the land in question. By that very order, the learned Judge has directed the Receiver to make settlement of the Mela and Bazar on the lands in question and to maintain separate account and to deposit the proceed of such settlement in the State Bank of India. 2. It appears that a partition suit was filed in the year 1943 on behalf of the plaintiffs who are described as Mukharjees claiming l/4th share in the suit properties. During the pendency of that suit the Estate vested under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act. On some of the lands, a Mela known as Madhuwan, was being held on the date of the vesting of the Estate. A dispute arose as to whether the said Mela and Bazar held on such land had vested in the State of Bihar under the previsions of the aforesaid Act. Opposite-party No. 5, filed a writ application (M.J.C. No. 763 of 1956) before this Court for a writ of mandamus restraining the State of Bihar from interfering with the holding of the Mela and Bazar on the aforesaid land which she claimed to be her raiyati land on the basis of a Settlement having been made in her favour in the year 1941 by the then intermediary. The Settler the then Intermediary happened to be her husband. A Bench presided over by the then Chief Justice allowed the said writ application on 4-12-1958. It was observed: If the petitioner has raiyati interest in the disputed land, it is clear that the title to the land does not vest in the State of Bihar by virtue of the notification under the Bihar Land Reforms Act and the opposite parties have no right to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the disputed land or to interfere with the right of the petitioner to hold a Mela or Hat thereon. 3. In the partition suit aforesaid a preliminary decree had been passed and even a final decree has been prepared sealed and signed. 3. In the partition suit aforesaid a preliminary decree had been passed and even a final decree has been prepared sealed and signed. That final decree is at the stage of execution. During the execution proceeding a Receiver has been appointed. At this stage, as already stated above, an application was filed on behalf of the State of Bihar in the execution case abovementioned for restraining the Receiver from taking steps for Settlement of Mela and Bazar on the lands in question which has been rejected by the impugned order. 4. On behalf of the State of Bihar, the petitioner, a stand has been taken that inspite of the aforesaid judgment of this Court, after introduction of Sections 7-A and 7-B, the right to collect toll from the Mela and Bazar in question has vested in the State of Bihar. It was pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that the judgment delivered by this Court on 4-12-1958 shall not stand in the way after the introduction of the aforesaid two sections in the Act by Amending Act 16 of 1959. According to the petitioner, the State of Bihar, is now entitled to collect the toll from the Mela and Bazar in question. Secs. 7-A and 7-B which were introduced in the Act by the aforesaid Amending Act are as follows: (7-A) Lands on which Bat or Bazar was held not deemed to be settled with the Intermediary.--Nothing in Sec. 5, Sec. 6 or Sec. 7 shall be deemed to confer any right on the intermediary in respect of any land on which at any time within one year prior to the date of vesting to the estate or tenure the intermediary was holding a Hat or Bazar. (7-B) Right to hold Mela to vest in the State. Where on any land deemed to be settled with the Intermediary under Sec. 5, Sec. 6 or Sec. 7, a Mela was being held by the intermediary at any time within three years of the date of vesting the right to hold such Mela on such land shall, with effect from the date of vesting, vest in the State and notwithstanding anything contained in any law, the State Government shall have and any intermediary shall not have the right to hold Mela on such land. On a plain reading of Secs. On a plain reading of Secs. 7-A and 7-B it is apparent that these sections are applicable to the Hat, Bazar and Mela held by Ex-intermediary which right, after the introduction of these sections aforesaid has vested in the State of Bihar. These sections shall not affect the right of raiyats to hold Mela or Bazar on their own raiyati lands. 5 The Government pleader No. 1, who has appeared for the State of Bihar, in view of the clear and unambiguous language of Secs. 7-A and 7-B could not contest this legal position. As such, Secs. 7-A and 7-B-shall charge the position, only if the Bazar and Mela are found to have been held by the Ex-intermediary or any person on his behalf. In the instant case, when this Court has clearly held in the earlier writ application that respondent No. 5 Smt. Radha Dulari Kuer had raiyati interest in the disputed land and has accepted the settlement alleged to have been made in her favour in the year 1941 by her husband who was then the intermidiary, it is not possible now for the State of Bihar to challenge the said finding recorded by this Court. There is no statement in the revision application that the State of Bihar had moved the Supreme Court of India against the judgment dated 4-12-1958 : rather a very peculiar statement has been made in paragraph 13 of the revision application saying that order in the aforesaid M.J.C. No. 763 of 1956 "had been obtained behind the back of the important interested parties as well as by supressing very material fact from this High Court." From a bare reference to the judgment of this Court, it appears that the then Standing Counsel appeared for the State of Bihar and arguments raised on behalf of the State of Bihar has been considered and thereafter finding has been recorded. The State of Bihar being party to that judgment and finding recorded in that judgment is binding between the State of Bihar and respondent No. 5 who was the petitioner. Once the finding, recorded by this Court that respondent No. 5 is a raiyat in respect of the lands in question and she was holding the Mela and Bazar as raiyat there is no escape from the conclusion that Secs. Once the finding, recorded by this Court that respondent No. 5 is a raiyat in respect of the lands in question and she was holding the Mela and Bazar as raiyat there is no escape from the conclusion that Secs. 7-A and 7-B are not attracted and that shall not affect the right of respondent No. 5. As such, the learned Sub-ordinate Judge has rightly rejected the application filed on behalf of the State of Bihar. 6. This revision application is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.