JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member. - This is a revision against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, dated 11.8.1978 dismissing the appeal converted into revision against the Order of the S.D.O. Utraula, District Gonda dated 4.8.1977 whereby order for the auction of fish in the disputed land was maintained. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that the Gaon Sabha brought a suit under Section 229 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 on the ground that the dispute land is covered by water even then the defendant Satya Narayan and others are recorded as Sirdars which carry (sics) wrong because Sirdari rights could not accrue on such land which was covered by the water on the date of vesting and it has vested in the State and consequently in the Gaon Sabha under section 117 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. An application under Section 229-D was moved by the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha with the allegation that the dispute land contains fish which are being illegally collected ad disposed of by the defendants who have no title to do the same, hence the fish may be auctioned. 3. The trial Court by its order dated 22.9.1975 attached the land and ordered the supervisor-Kanungo to auction the fish. An objection was filed by the defendant-revisionist Satya Narayan against this order which was rejected by the trial Court by its order dated 4.8.1977 whereby it was ordered that the fish shall be auctioned every year pending the decision of the case and the amount should be deposited in the court. 4. An appeal was filed against the order of the Additional Commissioner which was converted into revision which was also dismissed. The learned Additional Commissioner though agreed with the revisionist that no order could be passed under Section 229-D of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 but it could be done under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code and, therefore, the order was held justified and maintained. This revision has been preferred against the same order. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 6. This revision has been preferred against the same order. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 6. Learned Counsel for the revisionist argued that in a case under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 no order can be passed under Section 229-D of the Act which point has been accepted by the learned Additional Commissioner but his order of upholding the order of the trial Court within the ambit of Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code is wrong. It was also argued that the contents of the application of the Gaon Sabha did not fall within the purview of Order XXXIX, Civil Procedure Code as well, hence the application was liable to be rejected out right, and it could not be allowed nor the fish of the land could be auctioned. 7. I find force in this contention. The application under Section 229-D of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 is not maintainable in a suit under Section 229 unless it is one under Section 229-B or C of the Act. Consequently, the application of the Gaon Sabha under Section 229-D of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 was not maintainable. I do not agree with the observations of the learned Additional Commissioner that the order of the trial Court is covered under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code because the condition mentioned in that Section do not seem to be complied with in the present case, moreover an order under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, can be passed only in such cases where specific provision is not given in the Act for a relief to be claimed by a party. The attachment of the property can be made either under Order XXXIX, Civil Procedure Code or under Section 229-D of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, hence it was the duty of the plaintiff to have satisfied the court that his application was covered by either of those provisions. As mentioned above that application was made only under Section 229-D of the Act which obviously was not maintainable, hence it was the duty of the plaintiff to satisfy the court that it could be allowed under Order XXXIX, Civil Procedure Code, unfortunately no argument in that direction was advanced by the plaintiff not did the trial court give finding on that point. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the trial court is against law ad cannot be maintained and should not have been allowed by the learned Additional Commissioner if he had understood the law on the subject properly. 8. The result is that the revision has to be allowed. The impugned order dated 4.8.1977 passed by the trial court has to be set aside and as a consequence of it the earlier order dated 22.9.1975 also deserves to be set aside and the case deserves to be remanded back to the trial court to pass fresh order on the application of the Gaon Sabha after hearing both the parties. 9. In the result, this revision is allowed. The impugned order of the Additional Commissioner as well as orders of the trial court dated 4.8.1977 and 22.9.1975 are set aside and the case is sent back to it to decide the application of the Gaon Sabha dated 22.9.1975 afresh after hearing both the parties. The trial court shall decide the case expeditiously as it has become extremely old.