JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, Member - A suit under Section 175 U.P. Tenancy Act was decreed in favour of plaintiff Mangala Prasad Singh on Nov. 28, 1945. 2. Plaintiff Mangala Prasad Singh moves an execution application in court of Asst. Collector/Tahsildar, Banaras, Court enters an order on 25.6.53: Dakhal Dehani be made in the case now. 3. Two appeals were lodged against the said order in the court of Assistant Collect or (Executive) Varanasi. Appeal No. 4 of 1977 by Punnu and Appeal No. 5 of 1977 by Sita Ram. Both the appeals were decided by a common order. Sri S.K.S. Solanki, learned Additional Collector by his order dated 20.9.80 allows the appeal; sets aside order of Tahsildar dated 25.6.53. 4. A revision is lodged by Ravindra Kumar Singh's in Commissioner's. Sri S.P. Singh, Additional Commissioner (Executive) by his order dated 9.5.84 has dismissed the revision. So a revision is carried by Ravindra Kumar. 5. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The suit under Section 175 U.P. Tenancy Act was decreed on 28.11.45. On 25.6.53 execution application moved by Mangala Prasad Singh in Tahsildar's. The same day order has been passed to deliver Dakhal to decree holder. Addl. Collector an appeal and Additional Commissioner in revision have held that as Zamindari Abolition has taken effect from 1-7-1952 Sections 4 and 5 of Z.A. Rules will come into play. The judgment debtors Punnu and Sita Ram have acquired rights of tenant in possession: Adhivasi or whatever. 7. The counsel for revisionist has made numerous submissions. His content ion is that the land is situate in Urban Area and Urban Area Zamindari Abolition Land Reforms Act came into force on 1.7.63. So Act No. 1 of 1951 and Rules 4 and 5 of the Rules will have no application in the case. I agree. A Khatuani extract of 1397 to 1402 Fasli shows the commencement of tenure from 1370 Fasli which corresponds to 1.7.63. So no question of accrual of rights to judgment-debtors under Act No. 1 of 1951 will arise. 8. The counsel for revisionist urges that even if Act No.1 of 1951 is taken to have come into force, Rules 4 and 5 of Z.A. Rules will not entail dismissal of Dakhal Dehani application. So no question of accrual of rights to judgment-debtors under Act No. 1 of 1951 will arise. 8. The counsel for revisionist urges that even if Act No.1 of 1951 is taken to have come into force, Rules 4 and 5 of Z.A. Rules will not entail dismissal of Dakhal Dehani application. Since it is shown that Z.A.L.R. Act was not enforced in relation to this land, it will not serve to elucidate the implications of the said Rules 4 and 5. 9. The counsel for opposite party contends that Dakhal execution application was also against the order dated 28.11.45. This cannot be so and in execution decree dated 28.11.45. This cannot be so and in execution decree dated 28.11.45 cannot be questioned. The counsel for opposite party also contends that rights of judgment debtor will accrue under Section 20 Explanation 3 Z.A. Act. As already shown Z.A. Act has no role to play here. 10. The counsel for revisionist submits that Section 1 (ii) U.P. Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition on Previllages) (Amendment) and Misc. Provisions Act 1950 makes clear that proceedings relating to execution of decree under Section 175 shall remain stayed in respect of lands included on 7.7.49 in a Municipality etc. He says that paragraph 12 makes clear that application of it will seize to apply. This was Gazetted on 2.5.53. On this basis the counsel contends that execution proceeding will continue. As held by me the provisions of U.P. Z.A. L.R. Act will not apply. 11. The revision is allowed and the orders of the two courts below are set aside. The order of Tahsildar directing delivery of possession to decree-holder is just and proper. The order dated 25.6.53 will stand.