JUDGMENT R.P. Gupta, Member. - Second appeal No. 96 of 77-78 is filed by the plaintiff Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur, against the Rikhi Lal and State of U.P. while second appeal No. 106 of 1977-78 is filed by the defendant Rikhi Lal against Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur and State of U.P. By these appeals the same order of the Addl. Commissioner, Allahabad dated 8-11-77 was challenged by the plaintiff as well as defendant No. 1. Both these appeals are heard together. 2. The relevant facts are that the plaintiff Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur on 10-2-76 in the court of S.D.O. Kanpur filed a suit under section 229/209 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act against the defendants Rikhi Lal and State of U.P. regarding plots No. 835/1-6-0, 866/0-2-0, 867/0-15-0 and 1255/0-4-0 situated in village Sanigawan Tahsil and district Kanpur with in the limit of Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur. The plaintiff alleged that the land in suit on the date of vesting had vested in Gaon Sabha being vacant land. On 1-2-60 by notification the land in suit had vested in Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur. The defendant No. 1 wrongly got his name recorded over the land in suit in 1367 Fasli and is claiming his possession. As such suit for declaration and dispossession of the defendant No. 1 is filed. The defendant No. 1 Rikhi Lal contested the suit and alleged that he had taken land in suit from Zamindarand became its Sirdar. In every case being in possession for more than 20 years he became Sirdar by adverse possession. Usar and Banjar entries were wrong. By amending W.S. the defendant No. 1 alleged that he was Chamar the member of schedule casts and being landless agricultural labourer in possession of the land in suit on 30-6-75, he became its Sirdar under section 122-B (4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Twelve issues were framed by the trial court who after taking evidence of the parties decreed the suit of the plaintiff on 23-3-77. The defendant No. 1 filed appeal against this judgment which was allowed by the learned Addl. Commissioner Allahabad on 8-11-77 regarding plot No. 866/0-2-0 and 867/ 0-15-0 and was dismissed regarding other two plots holding that these two plots No. 835 and 1255 were pasture land in which the Sidari rights could not have accrued. Against this judgement both the plaintiff and defendant No, I filed the present second appeals. 3. Commissioner Allahabad on 8-11-77 regarding plot No. 866/0-2-0 and 867/ 0-15-0 and was dismissed regarding other two plots holding that these two plots No. 835 and 1255 were pasture land in which the Sidari rights could not have accrued. Against this judgement both the plaintiff and defendant No, I filed the present second appeals. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the section 122B (4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. was not applicable regarding Nagar Mahapalika land. It was applicable on Gaon Sabha land only. According to him the judgment of trial court was the correct judgement. In reply the learned counsel for the defendant argued that plaintiff nowhere alleged in the plaint that plot No. 835 and 1255 were pasture land and as such the appeal of defendant should have been allowed regarding all the four plots. He further argued that as Nagar Mahapalika entered in the shoes of Gaon Sabha, section 122B (4F) was applicable, He relied on A.I.R. 1976 Allahabad 121 and argued that in fact owner of the land is State of U.P. who gave sirdari rights to the members of schedule castes by amending the Act and adding section 122B (4F). 4. There is no dispute between parties at this stage that on the date of vesting i.e. 1-7-52 the land in suit had vested in the State Government and the Gaon Sabha which came within Nagar Mahapalika Kanpur with effect from 1-2-1960. In State of U.P. v. Smt. Ramsri, AIR 1976 Allahabad 121 it was held by the division bench that State Government is absolutely owner of the estate and that the purpose of the notification by the State Government under section 117(1) is that possession of the Estate should be handed over to the Gaon Sabha or other local authority in whose favour such notification is made so that such authority may superintend, manage and control it. The title continues to remain with the State Government. By notification dated 16-1-60 with effect from 1-2-1960 the boundries of Nagar Mahapalika Kanpur was extended and the land in suit came with the boundries of Nagar Mahapalika Kanpur. The title continues to remain with the State Government. By notification dated 16-1-60 with effect from 1-2-1960 the boundries of Nagar Mahapalika Kanpur was extended and the land in suit came with the boundries of Nagar Mahapalika Kanpur. By G. O. No. 208/1-A-176/1960 dated March 19, 1964 it was clarified that Gaon Sabha in respect of area included within limit of Nagar Mahapalika Kanpur ceased to exist and all its property had vested in Nagar Mahapalika Kanpur under Section 117 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and Section 126 of U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Act. Thus it is clear that in fact Nagar Mahapalika has not entered in the shoes of Gaon Sabha but by notification Gaon Sabha ceased to exist regarding the land in suit which is the area included within the limit of Nagar Mahapalika Kanpur with effect from 1-2-60 from which date it vested in Nagar Mahapalika Kanpur under Section 126 (1) (a) of U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Act, and Section 117 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 5. Let us see whether Section 122B (4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is applicable regarding the land of Nagar Mahapalika is local authority or it is applicable regarding the land of Gaon Sabha only. While in Section 122B (1) of the Act Gaon Sabha or local authority both are mentioned in Section 122B (4F) only Gaon Sabha is mentioned. Local authority is not mentioned in it. By it the intention of the legislature is clear that Sirdari right under Section 122B (4F) cannot be given regarding the land of local authority. In the present case on 30-6-75 land in suit was not of Gaon Sabha but was of Nagar Mahapalika Kanpur and as such no rights in it can accrue to the defendant No. 1 even if he is agricultural labourer or schedule caste having less than 3.125 acres land. 6. I accordingly hold that Section 122B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is applicable regarding Gaon Sabha land only and not regarding the land of local authority. 7. The result is that while second appeal No. 106 of 1977-78 filed by the defendant No. 1 Rikhi Lal is dismissed, second appeal No. 96 of 77-78 filed by the plaintiff Nagar Mahapalika Kanpur is allowed, and the suit of plaintiff is decreed regarding all the four plots in suit. Parties shall bear their own costs.