JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a revision against the order of the Additional Commissioner I, Meerut Division, Meerut dated December 20, 1982 through which the revision filed against the order of the Tahsildar, Asstt. Collector 1st Class, Saharanpur dated October 8, 1980 was rejected. 2. The facts of this case in brief are that on the report of the Lekhpal that the revisionist has unlawfully occupied the disputed land and raised a building, a notice was issued to him to show cause as to why he should not be ejected and should pay Rs. 4,500/- as damages. The revisionist filed an objection starting that his grandfather had purchased an area of 7 Biswa including the disputed land in 1921 and since then it has been used as his Abadi and it never vested in the Gaon Sabha. It was also alleged that this house being Kachcha had fallen down in the rainy season, hence it was being reconstructed. The learned Tahsildar rejected the objection and passed an order for ejectment of the revisionist and also imposed damage at Rs. 4500/-. A revision filed against the order was also dismissed, hence this revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the original sale deed as on record which shows that an area of 7 Biswa in old plot No. 573 was purchased by the revisionist's father and it is being used as Abadi. It was also argued that the present disputed plot is the same old plot, hence it never vested in that Gaon Sabha and that the entry of Banjar is wrong. It was also argued that the courts below have erred in holding the objection of the revisionist barred by Section 49 of the U.P. C.H. Act on the ground that he had not filed any objection before the consolidation courts because the Consolidation Courts have no jurisdiction to decide the title of Abadi land and that there was no necessity for the revisionist to the file any objection before that court. 5. I find force in this contention so raised before me. From the statement of the Lekhpal and the sale deed on record it is proved that the dispute land is the same land which has been purchased by the revisionist's grandfather. 5. I find force in this contention so raised before me. From the statement of the Lekhpal and the sale deed on record it is proved that the dispute land is the same land which has been purchased by the revisionist's grandfather. Consequently this land having ben in the occupation of revisionist on July 1, 1952 could not vest in Gaon Sabha and, therefore, could not be recorded as Banjar. Obviously no dispute arose before the consolidation court about this land, hence it was not required that the revisionist should have filed any objection before the consolidation court because he must have been under the impression that this piece of land which was in his occupations was not going to be effected by the consolidation proceedings. In such circumstances if he did not file any objection before that court his defence in this case would not be barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. I am, therefore, of the view that the disputed land belongs to the revisionist and not to the Gaon Sabha and, therefore, he cannot be evicted in the summary proceeding. A genuine dispute of title seems to have arisen which can be set at rest only through a regular suit. In such circumstances I find that the order passed by both the courts below are against law and facts on record and must be quashed. 6. The revision is, therefore, allowed and orders passed by both the court below are set aside. The Gaon Sabha is directed to seek ejectment of the revisionist through a regular suit, if it deems fit.