JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member. - This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17-11-1981 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, in Appeal No. 372 of 1979-80, allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 10-10-79 passed by the Assistant Collector First Class, Hardoi, in Suit no. 5/15/19/331 under Sections 229-B/209 of U.P. Act I of 1951. 2. The facts in brief are that Balak Ram, plaintiff-appellant, filed a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act I of 1951 in respect of plot No. 141, area 2-14-15 situated in village Sahaura. Pargana and Tahsil Shahabad, District Hardoi, on the allegations that he had been in possession over the land in dispute for over ten years, that he was a landless agricultural labourer and was a Harijan, that he held land less than 3.125 acres together with this land, that he had been in possession over the land in dispute on 30th June, 1975 and as such he became a bhumidhar of the land in suit, and that a lease of this land had been executed in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, Jodha and Chhutta which was illegal. The suit was contested by the defendants alleging that they were allotted this land, and that the plaintiff was not in possession of the land in dispute. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court. Against that an appeal was preferred before the learned Additional Commissioner, who allowed the appeal on 17-11-1981. Against that order of the learned Additional Commissioner, the instant second appeal has been filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had been in possession over the land in dispute much prior to 30th June, 1975 and, thus, acquired bhumidhari rights under amended Section 122-B of U.P. Act I of 1951, that Gaon Sabha had no authority to execute any lease deed in favour of defendant-respondents Nos. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had been in possession over the land in dispute much prior to 30th June, 1975 and, thus, acquired bhumidhari rights under amended Section 122-B of U.P. Act I of 1951, that Gaon Sabha had no authority to execute any lease deed in favour of defendant-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and the lease deed, if any executed, was invalid, that oral evidence has not been considered by the learned Additional Commissioner, and that the learned Additional Commissioner has violated the provisions contained under Order 41 Rule 31 C. P. C. Against this, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appellant was not an agricultural labourer and as such he could not get the benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Act I of 1951, and that the lease was legally granted in favour of respondents and they were in possession over the land in dispute since then. 5. The learned Additional Commissioner has held that there was no documentary evidence to establish that the appellant was ever in possession over the land in dispute, that in oral evidence also nothing was said against the Lekhpal or the Supervisor Kanungo, and that the oral evidence of possession of appellant for 12 years was not supported by any documentary evidence and, hence, the oral evidence was not believed by the learned Additional Commissioner. He held that on the basis of oral evidence the possession of the plaintiff-appellant could not be held. 6. I find that the view of the learned Additional Commissioner suffers from no infirmity. He has considered the oral evidence and has come to the conclusion that possession of the appellant was not there on 30th June, 1975. He held that on the basis of oral evidence the possession of the plaintiff-appellant could not be held. 6. I find that the view of the learned Additional Commissioner suffers from no infirmity. He has considered the oral evidence and has come to the conclusion that possession of the appellant was not there on 30th June, 1975. Even if it is admitted that the appellant was in possession on 30th June, 1975 even then also he could not be given benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Act I of 1951, which reads as under : - "122-B (4-F) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing subsections, where agricultural labourer belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is in occupation of any land vested in a Gaon Sabha under Section 117 (not being land mentioned in Section 132) having occupied it from before June 30, 1975 and the land so occupied together with land, if any, held by him from before the said date as bhumidhar, sirdar or asami does not exceed 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres), then no action under this section shall be taken by the Land Management Committee or the Collector against such labourer, and it shall be deemed that he has been admitted as sirdar of that land under Section 195. Explanation. - The expression 'agricultural labourer' shall have the meaning assigned to it in Section 198." 7. From the above provisions, it is evident that benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Act I of 1951 can be granted only on fulfilment of conditions, firstly, that the person concerned should be an agricultural labourer ; secondly, that he should belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe ; thirdly, his occupation of any land vested in Gaon Sabha under Section 117 (not being land mentioned in Section 132) having occupied it from before 30th June, 1975 and, fourthly, that the land so occupied together with land held by him from before the said date as bhumidhar, sirdar or asami does not exceed 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres), and it is then only that no action under Section 122-B shall be taken by the Land Management Committee or the Collector against such an agricultural labourer and it shall be deemed that be has been admitted to land as sirdar under Section 195. Explanation attached to Section 198(1) says that an agricultural labourer' means a person whose main source of livelihood is agricultural labour. In the instant case I find that there is no evidence on record which establishes that the appellant was an agricultural labourer, meaning thereby that his main source of livelihood was agricultural labour. The fact of possession of appellant on 30th June 1975 was also not found to be established as both the courts below have held that he was not in possession over the land on 30th June, 1975. Consequently, I find that benefit of provisions of Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Act I of 1951 could not be extended to the appellant. 8. In view of the above, this second appeal fails having no force and is hereby dismissed.