JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, J.M. - On 11.11.75 Lekhpal submits a report to eject Samai Ram because he has taken possession over Gaon Sabha land, commencing 1382 Fasli. Samai files an objection in opposition contending that he is in possession for long and is a farm labourer of Schedule Caste. So he has perfected rights of a bhumidhar tenant in possession. On 15.7.77 Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaunpur made a declaration that he is sirdar tenant of the land. 2. On 5.7.78 one Chotu moves a restoration application to set aside the order dated 15.7.77. It is also complained that Samai Ram is not really in possession and the proceeding was infected and illegal. On 10.5.79 restoration application was dismissed. 3. On 15.10.79 a restoration application is moved by Pradhan on behalf of Gaon Sabha. The pleading has set forth the contention that Samai has no concern and is not in possession. On 9.6.80 an objection is filed by Samai. He contends that in a restoration application of Chotu, Gaon Sabha was served on 25.11.78. As Pradhan had knowledge of previous case his restoration application given in collusion with Chotu. On 8.8.82 Sub-Divisional Officer has granted the restoration off Gaon Sabha; in consequence the order dated 15.7.77 has been set aside. It is against this order that Samai Ram lodges a revision in Commissioner's. On 25.5.84 Additional Commissioner submits a reference to set aside the order dated 8.8.82 and to dismiss the restoration application of Gaon Sabha. 4. Heard the counsel for and against the reference. 5. The counsel for revisionist Samai Ram has made several important submissions. His one contention is that a Civil suit in respect of this land had been litigated between Chotu and Samai which shows clearly that Pradhan, Gaon Sabha had knowledge of order dated 15.7.77 and also was aware of Chotu's rejection of restoration application on 10.5.79. His contention is that restoration application by Gaon Sabha on 15.10.79 is clearly barred by limitation. This point needs close scrutiny. The suit was filed by Chotu in the court of Munsif Jaunpur on 26.10.77 impleading Samai Ram and Gaon Sabha. In that suit Pradhan has filed his written statement on 17.12.77 partly in favour of Chotu. In that suit Samai Ram also files his written statement on 9.5.78 and his chief contention is that Sub-Divisional Officer has declared him sirdar tenant on 15.7.77. In that suit Pradhan has filed his written statement on 17.12.77 partly in favour of Chotu. In that suit Samai Ram also files his written statement on 9.5.78 and his chief contention is that Sub-Divisional Officer has declared him sirdar tenant on 15.7.77. From all this factual position it is clear that Pradhan had knowledge of crucial order dated 15.7.77. He had knowledge at least on 9.5.78 when written statement had been filed by him. Ultimately the suit of Chotu was dismissed by Munsif on 1.9.84. Aggrieved by this order Chotu files an appeal No. 346 of 1984 which was dismissed by Civil Judge on 8.9.86. From this the contention of counsel for revisionist is that Chotu is out of court because he has lost in civil court. Also Gaon Sabha stands nowhere because it had knowledge of order dated 15.7.77 at least on 9.5.78 but he moves restoration application on 15.10.79. So his restoration application is barred by limitation. So the reference is fit enough for acceptance. 6. The counsel for opposite party has refuted all these allegations. 7. I have considered the matter. The proceeding began on a report from Lekhpal for ejectment of Samai Ram. The ejectment proceedings has taken an extra-ordinary turn in favour of Samai Ram and only on reports of Supervisor Kanungo and Tahsildar Sub-Divisional Officer had declared him sirdar tenant in possession manifestly under Section 122-B (4-F) Z.A. Act. I am of firm opinion that no declaration of rights is supportable in proceeding under Section 122-B (4-F): 1980 RD 87 is clear that no sirdari rights can be conferred in this summary proceeding. It appears from 1982 RD 297 that such rights are open to recognition and confirment only under Section 229-B Z.A. Act. Where it is found that trespasser fulfils the conditions of Section 122-B (4-F) ejectment proceeding has only to be dropped 1983 RD 283 it has been made clear that this is the only course open to drop the proceeding. In this case Sub-Divisional Officer went beyond his jurisdiction to declare that Samai Ram is sirdar tenant in possession by his order dated 15.7.77. So this order is clearly beyond jurisdiction. 8. In this position the restoration of Chotu Ram is moved and rejected on 10.5.79. Then comes the restoration by Pradhan on 15.10.79. I agree with the counsel for revisionist that this restoration is moved with delay. So this order is clearly beyond jurisdiction. 8. In this position the restoration of Chotu Ram is moved and rejected on 10.5.79. Then comes the restoration by Pradhan on 15.10.79. I agree with the counsel for revisionist that this restoration is moved with delay. It is well to remember that where things take shape in a developing process it is apt always to begin from the starting point. From Sub-Divisional Officer's order dated 15.7.77, beyond jurisdiction or from Pradhan's restoration dated 15.10.79 with delay. "It makes all the difference in the word" said Coleridge, "whether one puts truth in the first place in the second." From this stand point, Sub-Divisional Officer's order 15.7.77 is to be set aside in court's inherent power to correct it's own agregarious error when mislead by inadmissible report of Tahsil. This vital, finds support from 1990 RD 47 SC DB and AIR 1912 Patna 483. In this view the point of limitation is not vital. In AIR 1989 S.C. 597 it has been observed. "Court would not be technical in dealing with a matter of this magnitude. We have therefore entertained this miscellaneous petition." In a case where interest of Gaon Sabha is involved court has inherent power to recall an order made earlier in the suit passed in the absence of material which was subsequently placed AIR 1957 Alld 825. The land is surely Gaon Sabha's and I see gross abuse of court's process. In restoration even a stranger can bring to Court's notice that Sub-Divisional Officer has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him. The delay will come to little. In this perspective the order of grant of restoration is eminently just and proper. Additional Commissioner has concerned himself with concerns not central to the heart of the matter; has cited two times 1983 RD 242. This has nothing to do with controversy in hand. Sub-Divisional Officer has grasped the point that in declaration of sirdari rights on 15.7.77 no notice was served on Gaon Sabha. The report of Lekhpal was to eject Samai Ram. How the proceeding has taken a turn to confer sirdari rights on him based on inadmissible report? Pradhan was surely not informed before this order through summon so that he could have put the matter before LMC in Session. It is highly likely that on protest from LMC that order beyond jurisdiction may not have come to pass. How the proceeding has taken a turn to confer sirdari rights on him based on inadmissible report? Pradhan was surely not informed before this order through summon so that he could have put the matter before LMC in Session. It is highly likely that on protest from LMC that order beyond jurisdiction may not have come to pass. 9. The counsel for revisionist calls attention to 1990 RJ 123 to buttress home the point that a delayed restoration application is to be rejected. The concrete facts here are so materially different. 10. The reference is misconceived so is rejected.