S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respon dents. 2. Perused the record. 3. Feeing aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Tehsildar in the proceed ings under Section 122-B of the U. P. Zamin dari Abolition and Land Reforms Act directing the eviction of the petitioner from plot No. 785 excepting an area of 0. 20 Hec tares for use as a passage and demolition of unauthorised constructions made by him standing in the remaining area of 0. 170 hec tares, the petitioner sought to challenge the said order by filing a revision under Section 122-B (4-A) of the U. P. Zamindari Abdoli-tion and Land Reforms Act without any success as the said revision was dismissed vide the order dated 29-8-1995 by the Addi tional Collector, the respondent No. 1. 4. Being aggrieved the petitioner has now approached this Court, seeking redress praying for the quashing of both the aforesaid orders. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the Additional Tehsildar framed three issues and after considering the oral and documen tary evidence on the record as well as the report of the commissioner he came to the conclusion that plot No. 785 in dispute which had been claimed to have been encroached upon in an unauthorised man ner by the petitioner constituted a land con templated under Section 132 of the U. P. Zamindari abdolition and Land Reforms Act which had been reserved for a public purpose for being utilised as a khalihan. He also came to the conclusion that an area of 0. 037 hectares of the area of land in dis pute was lying vacant and a portion thereof was being utilised as a passage. 6. In his objections to the notice in Z. A. Form 49-A, the petitioner had asserted in paragraph 6 thereof that the Gram Prad-han and the Up-Pradhan acting in collusion with the brother of Ajab Singh the brother of the Pradhan and Rampal, the brother of the Up-Pradhan had encroached upon the plot No. 785 vesting in the Gaon Sabha and had raised a construction thereon hurriedly leaving no space closing the passage used by the petitioner to reach his gher. The aforesaid assertions made by the petitioner himself clearly indicate that the entries in C. H. Form-41 and C. H. Form-45 relied upon by the Additional Tehsildar for hold ing the land in dispute to be vesting in the Gaon Sabha were not incorrect in any man ner as the petitioner himself disclosed in paragraph 6 of the objections that the plot No. 785 vested in the Gaon Sabha. How ever, in paragraph 3 of this objections, the petitioner had asserted that the land in dis pute was not the property of the Gaon Sabha and the possession of the petitioner over the same could not be taken to be unauthorised. What was asserted was that towards the south of the land in dispute, the petitioner had his ancestral gher the door whereof opened towards the land in dispute and the land in dispute was being utilised as the sehan of the gher and as a passage for the ingress and egress of the carts, tethering of the cattle and keeping the carts. So far as this user is concerned, the claim was that the petitioner was utilising the land in dispute for the aforesaid purposes since before the enforcement of the U. P. Zamindari Abdoli tion and Land Reforms Act. 7. In the notice issued under S. A. Form 49-A, it was disclosed that the petitioner had occupied an area of 0. 037 hectares of plot No. 785. The Lekhpal had been examined as P. W.-l who had asserted that an area 0. 037 hectares in dispute was the property of the Gaon Sabha and had been encroached upon by the petitioner with effect from 6-10-1990. He had asserted that the land in dispute had never been used an Abadi as claimed. 8. The Additional Tahsildar, as has al ready been indicated above had found that the entire plot No. 785 stood vested in the Gaon Sabha and making a provision for the petitioner for a passage for which an area of 0. 20 hectares was found sufficient, he had passed an order for recovery of possession over an area of 0. 170 hectare. The aforesaid orders/as affirmed in revision. 9. 20 hectares was found sufficient, he had passed an order for recovery of possession over an area of 0. 170 hectare. The aforesaid orders/as affirmed in revision. 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the petitioner had raised a bonafide dispute of title and therefore it was not open for the respondent authorities in the proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act to pass an order as in question as these proceedings have to be taken to be of a summary nature. In support of this submission, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has strongly relied upon the observations made by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thum-mala Krishna Rao and another, AIR 1982 S. C. 1081 to the effect that if there is a bona fide dispute regarding the title of the Government to any property, the Govern ment cannot take a unilateral decision in its own favour that the property belongs to it and on the basis of such decision take recourse to the summary remedy provided by Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 for evicting the person who is in possession of the property under a bonafide claim or title. On the facts disclosed in that case, the Apex Court had come to a conclusion that there was unques tionably a genuine dispute between the State Government and the respondents in regard to the question of title and finding that t he respondent had a bonafide claim to litigate, the Apoex Court ruled that they could not be evicted save by the due process of law and the summary remedy prescribed by Section 6 could not be taken to be that kind of legal process which is suited to an adjudication of complicated questions of title. Such a procedure it was indicated could not be due process of law for evicting the respondents in that case. 10. Such a procedure it was indicated could not be due process of law for evicting the respondents in that case. 10. The provisions contained in Sec tion 6 (1) of the aforesaid Act which were considered in the aforesaid decision provided that a person in an unauthorised occupation of any land as contemplated therein could be summarily evicted by the Collector but as provided under Section 7 of the Act before proceeding under that provision, the Collector/iahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar as the case may be was required to cause to be served on the person concerned a notice specifying the land so occupied and calling on him to show cause before a certain date why he should not be proceeded against under Section 5 or Sec tion 6 of the Act. 11. It has been urged by the learned Counsel representing the respondent however, that the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be deemed to be attracted in the facts and cir cumstances of the present case. It has fur ther been contended that the provisions contained in Section 122-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act carve out a procedure entirely different as compared to the procedure provided for under the provisions which were considered in the aforesaid case decided by the Apex Court and taking into consideration the im plications arising under the provisions at taching a statutory finality to the decision of a competent revising authority invoked by the aggrieved person himself not opting to go for adjudication in regard to his alleged claim negatived by the Assistant Collector before a court of competent jurisdiction, there can be no justification for holding that the procedure provided under Section 122-B of the Act is such a procedure which has to be taken to be otherwise than a due process oflaw. 12. I have given my anxious considera tion to the rival contentions. 13. The provisions contained in Sec tion 122-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act have undergone con siderable changes brought in by various amendments. 12. I have given my anxious considera tion to the rival contentions. 13. The provisions contained in Sec tion 122-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act have undergone con siderable changes brought in by various amendments. Under the unamended provisions if a person produced evidence which appeared to the Collector to raise a bonafide dispute of title, the Collector was required not to proceed further requiring such a person to file a suit for declaration and further action was to be taken by him according to the result of such suit. 14. The earlier provisions contained in Section 122-B (2) in this regard was to the following effect: "122-B (2) - "where the Land Manage ment Committee or the local authority fails to take action in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) within a period of six months from the date of wrong occupation, and one month from the date of damage or mis-appropriation, the Collector may, except in a case involving a bonafide question of title, on an application of the Chairman, Member or Secretary of the Land Management Committee or the local authority, as the case may be, or on facto coming to his notice otherwise, take steps for the ejectment of the person in wrongful occupation of the land and for recovery of compensation for wrongful occupa tion of the land for damage to, or misappropria tion of the property. " 15. However, the provisions contained in Section 122-B at the relevant time in this case was to the following effect: "122-B. Power of the Land Management Committee and the Collector.- (1) Where any property vested under the provisions of this Act in a Gaon Sabha or a local authority is damaged or misappropriated or where any Gaon Sabha or local authority is entitled to take or retain posses sion of any land under the provisions of this Act and such land is occupied otherwise than in ac cordance with the provisions of this Act, the Land Management Committee or Local Authority, as the case may be, shall inform the Assistant Collec tor concerned in the manner prescribed. (2) Where from the information received under sub-section (1) or otherwise, the Assistant Collector is satisfied tha| any property referred to in sub-section (1) has been damaged or misap propriated or any person is occupation of any land, referred to in that sub-section, in contraven tion of the provisions of this Act, he shall issue notice to the person concerned to show cause why compensation for damage, misapproiation or wrongful occupation as mentioned in such notice be not recovered from him or, as the case may be why he should not be evicted from such land. (3) If the person to whom a notice has been issued under sub- section (2) fails to show cause within such extended time not exceeding three months from the date of service of such notice on such person, as the Assistant Collector may allow in this behalf, or if the cause shown is found to be insufficient, the Assistant Collector may direct that such person may be evicted from the land and may for that purpose, use, or cause to be used such forced as may be necessary and may direct that the amount of compensation for damage, misappropriation or wrongful occupation be recovered from such person as arrears of land revenue. (4) If the Assistant Collector is of opinion that the person showing cause is not guilty of causing the damage or misappropriation or wrongful occupation referred to in the notice under sub-section (2) he shall discharge occupa tion referred to in the notice under sub-section (2) he shall discharge the notice. (4-A) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) may, within thirty days from the date of such order prefer, a revision before the Collector on the grounds mentioned in clauses (a) to9e)ofsection333. (4-B) The procedure to be followed in any action taken under this section shall be such as may be prescribed. (4-C) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 333 or Section 333-A, but subject to the provisions of this section - (i) every order of the Assistant Collector under this section shall, subject to the provisions of sub- sections (4-A) and (4-D), be final, (ii) every order of the Collector under this section shall, subject to the provisions of sub-sec tion (4-D) be final. (4-D) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector or Collector in respect of any property under this section may file a suit in a court of competent jurisdiction to establish the right claimed by him in such property. (4-E) No such suit as is referred to in sub section (4-D) shall lie against an order of the Assistant Collector if a revision is preferred to the Collector under sub-section (4-A ). " The provisions contained in Section 122-B (4-A) provide that any person ag grieved by the order of the Assistant Collec tor under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of Section 122-B may within thirty days from the date of such order prefer a revision before the Collector on the grounds men tioned in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 333. The provisions contained in Section 122-B (4-C) however, provide that every order of the Assistant Collector under that section shall, subject to the provisions of sub-sec tions (4-A) and (4-D), be final and an order of Collector under that section shall subject to the provisions of sub-section (4-D) be final. 16. The provisions contained in Sec tion 122-B (4-D) provide that any person aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Col lector or Collector in respect of any proper ty under this section may file a suit in a court of competent jurisdiction to establish the right claimed by him in such property. But Section 122-B (4-B) contains a prohibition to the effect that no such suit as is referred to in sub-section (4-D) shall lie against an order of Assistant Collector if a revision is preferred to the Collector under sub-sec tion (4-A ). 17. It is therefore, obvious that a per son aggiaved by an order passed by the As sistant Collector or a Collector under Sec tion 122-B (3) of (4) may file a suit in a Court of competent jurisdiction to establish the right claimed by him in the property in dis pute but this right is subject to the condition that the affected party has not invoked the revisory jurisdiction of the Collector as en visaged under Section 122- B (4- A) of the Act. As a consequence if a person is ag grieved by an order passed by the Assistant Collector as envisaged under Section 122-B (3) in that event he has two remedies open. As a consequence if a person is ag grieved by an order passed by the Assistant Collector as envisaged under Section 122-B (3) in that event he has two remedies open. He may eith challenge the said order by filing a revision as contemplated under Sec tion 122-B (4-A) of the Act or straightaway file a suit in the court of competent jurisdic tion to establish the right claimed by him in such a property. There may be a situation where the order passed under Section 122-B (3) goes against the Land Management Committee or the local authority. In that event also the Land Management Commit tee or the Local Authority can either file a revision or straightaway file a suit in a court of competent jurisdiction to establish the right claimed by it in the property in dispute. There may also be a situation where a case may fall in yet another category where the revision contemplated under Section 122-B (4-A) of the Act filed by an aggrieved person goes against the Land Management Com mittee or Local authority. In Such category of cases, the order will be that of a Collector as contemplated under Section 122-B (4-D) of the Act by which Land Management Committee or Local. Authority may fell ag grieved without having inv6ked the revisory jurisdiction. Such type of order will be an order passed by the Collector in a revisory proceedings which had not been initiated by the Land Management Committee or the Local Authority. In such a case where a party aggrieved by an order of the Collector passed in a proceedings wherein the ag grieved party has not invoked the revisory jurisdiction it has a remedy of filing a suit in court of competent jurisdiction to establish a right claimed by him which remedy stands protected. 18. In the present case, the petitioner had not opted for the remedy of any suit for establishing his right claimed by him in the property in dispute. He himself invoked the revisory jurisdiction contemplated under Section 122-B (4-A) of the Act where his claim was negatived. In this situation, the petitioner himself is responsible for losing his remedy of filing a regular suit in view of the prohibition contained in Section 122-B (4-E)oftheact. 19. He himself invoked the revisory jurisdiction contemplated under Section 122-B (4-A) of the Act where his claim was negatived. In this situation, the petitioner himself is responsible for losing his remedy of filing a regular suit in view of the prohibition contained in Section 122-B (4-E)oftheact. 19. It may however, be noticed that under the scheme of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, different remedies have been provided to the Gaon Sabha, Land Management Committee or the Local Authority for seeking recovery of possession of the property vested in it from the person who wrongfully encroaches upon it. It can file a regular suit or it may take recourse to a summary proceeding up to the stage of Section 122-B (4) of the U. P. Zamin dari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The proceedings contemplated therein remain a proceeding of a summary nature and any order passed under Section 122-B (3) or (4) is subject to the result of a regular suit filed in a court of competent jurisdiction by the aggrieved party. But once resource is taken by the aggrieved party to the remedy provided under Section 122-B (4-A) of the Act, the consequences which ensue are quite different. Having availed of this remedy, the bar contained in Section 122-B (4-E) of the Act then comes into play. 20. While it is true that providing a remedy of a summary nature without there being any appeal and providing a separate remedy with a right of appeal and a revision may be violative of Article 14 of the Con stitution of India as different proceedings, though falling under the same class and the category being that of trespassers or un authorised occupants may be subjected to different procedures one a summary and drastic procedure and the other the normal procedure with various rights which are denied to those who separately treated under the summary procedure. A scheme providing for such a summary proceeding as well as a regular proceedings without any criteria of classification was taken to be violative of the Article 14 of the Constitu tion of India by as clear from the ratio of its decision in the case of M. Ct. Muthaiah and others v. Commissioner of Income tax and another, AIR 1956 SC 269 . 21. Muthaiah and others v. Commissioner of Income tax and another, AIR 1956 SC 269 . 21. It has been strenuously contended that there can be different class of persons who might have encroached upon the land of the Gaon Sabha or the Local Authority as against whom the land Management Com mitted or the Local Authority may choose to take recourse to the summary procedure while as against the others, it may choose to file a regular suit. No manner of classifica tion has been put by which the Oaon Sabha, or the Land Management Committee or the Local Authority has to classify as against whom they are to proceed under Section 122-B of the Act or as against whom by filing a regular suit. Therefore, though falling in the same category of persons who had encroached upon the land vesting in the Gaon Sabha or Local Authority they can be dealt with by different procedures one of a summary nature and a drastic one and the other by the normal procedure with a right to appeal and other rights. 22. Considering the policy underlying the Act and the expeditious disposal of the cases relating to removal of unauthorised encroachments in public interest it appears to me that in order to over-come the aforesaid difficulty it was provided that once the aggrieved party choose not to avail the remedy of revision his right to file a regular suit for establishing his claim will remain protected but once such a person choose to invoke the revisory jurisdiction and invite a decision from the revising authority in that event, such a person will have to face the bar contained in Section 122-B (4-E) of the Act prohibiting the filing of the suit. 23. In this connection, there is yet another aspect which cannot be lost sight of. 23. In this connection, there is yet another aspect which cannot be lost sight of. There may be such cases where title of the Gaon Sabha or the Local Authority in respect of the property in dispute may not be laised and in that situation, there can be no impediment in straightaway proceeding under Section 122- B of the Act but even in such a situation, the right of the aggrieved pai ty against the-order passed by the Assis tant Collector or the Collector as the case may be so far as the maintainability of the suit in regard to the claim in respect of the property award of damages is concerned stands protected subject to the conditions referred to hereinabove. 24. In view of the scheme underlying the provisions under Section 122-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, as it stands, it seems to me that the said provisions cannot be held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 25. In view of what has been stated above, the ratio of the decision sought to be relied upon cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner. 26. Considering the facts and cir cumstances brought on record, and noticed in the order of Additional Tahsildar as well as the revisional order, I find no justifiable ground for any interference by this Court, while exercising the extraordinary jurisdic tion envisaged under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India. 27. The writ petition is accordingly dis missed. Petition dismissed. .