JUDGMENT S. K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a revision against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated 21-3-1980 dismissing the revision against the order dated 27-1-1979 of Tahsildar Budhana in a case under Section 122-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 directing the revisionist to file a regular suit for declaration of his title. 2. The facts of this case are that the lekhpal made a report to the Tahsildar that the revisionist had made encroachment on the disputed land which is Gaon Sabha property. A notice was issued to him to show cause. His defence was that the disputed land had been given to him and his son by the L.M.C, on allotment and both of them were put into possession, hence his possession was not illegal. 3. The trial court by its order dated 27-1-1979 found that the allotment had been made in favour of the revisionist and his son but the allotted land was rasta and could not be allotted to any one. The Tahsildar, therefore, stayed the proceeding and ordered the revisionist to file a regular suit for declaration of his title even though he came to the conclusion that it was not proper to eject the revisionist under Section 122-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. A revision preferred against that order was dismissed, hence this revision. 4. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that if once the trial court had come to the conclusion that ejectment of the revisionist in these proceedings was not proper it should have dropped the proceedings and should not have directed him to file a regular suit. He further argued that in such a case the trial court should have rather directed the Gaon Sabha itself to file a regular suit. 6. The learned DGC (R) contended that the order of the learned Tahsildar is valid and should not be interfered with. 7. I find force in the contention raised on behalf of the revisionist. The trial court had come to the conclusion that the land had been given to the revisionist by way of allotment and there was ample proof to the effect on the file in such circumstances the possession of the revisionist cannot be held to be unlawful. 7. I find force in the contention raised on behalf of the revisionist. The trial court had come to the conclusion that the land had been given to the revisionist by way of allotment and there was ample proof to the effect on the file in such circumstances the possession of the revisionist cannot be held to be unlawful. He cannot be ejected unless the lease executed in his favour is cancelled. It was not at all necessary to have asked him to go in a regular suit. The learned Tahsildar traversed beyond jurisdiction while passing such order. His order, therefore, deserves to be set aside. The learned Additional Commissioner failed to examine the matter in the right perspective, hence his order also deserves to be annulled. 8. In view of the above-discussion the revision is allowed. The orders passed by both the courts below are set aside. The proceedings under Section 122-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 are dropped. The Gaon Sabha is directed to file a regular suit for ejectment if it so desires. The L.M.C. may move for the cancellation of the patta also if it thinks fit.