YATINDRA SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THESE writ petitions consider If benefit under Sub-section (4f) of Section 122b [section 122b (4f)] of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (the Z. A. Act), could be given over land not vested in a Gaon Sabha and consequences of declaration of a Gaon Sabha to be Town Area under Section 3 of the Town Area Act, 1914 (the T. A. Act ). THE FACTS ( 2 ) THE land is dispute vested in Gaon Sabha, Rithaura, Bareilly under Section 117 of the Z. A. Act. The Gaon Sabha, Rithaura was upgraded as town Area Rithaura by notification dated 10. 4. 1974 under the T. A. Act. This Act has been since repealed and now all town areas, according to their population, have been renamed and are governed by the U. P. Municipalities act, 1914. Town Area. Rithaura has now become Nagar Panchayat, Rithaura. ( 3 ) IT is not clear from the records when consolidation operations were started under U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 1953 (the Consolidation Act) but the petitioners filed objections under Section 9a of the Consolidation Act alleging that : (1) They are landless agriculturists belonging to scheduled caste. (2) They are in possession over the plots in dispute since the time of their ancestors. (3) Their names may be recorded over property in dispute in view of Section 122b (4f) of the Z. A. Act. The Consolidation Officer allowed these objections on 19. 4. 1999 directing their names to be recorded as bumidhar with transferable rights. He held that petitioners are in possession over the gaon Sabha property prior to 3rd June. 1995 and are entitled to benefit of Section 122b (4f) of the Z. A. Act. ( 4 ) THE State filed appeals. These appeals were allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation (the S. O. C.) on the ground that the petitioners were not in possession over the land in dispute. The petitioners filed revisions which were dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (the D. D. C.) on 11. 3. 2002 on the ground that the benefit under Section 122b (4f) of the Z. A. Act could not be given over the land in dispute as it had ceased to be Gaon Sabha land in view of notification dated 10th April. 1974 under Section 3 of the T. A. Act. 3. 2002 on the ground that the benefit under Section 122b (4f) of the Z. A. Act could not be given over the land in dispute as it had ceased to be Gaon Sabha land in view of notification dated 10th April. 1974 under Section 3 of the T. A. Act. declaring Gaon Sabha, rithaura to be Town Area, Rithaura. Hence, the present writ petitions. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION ( 5 ) I have heard Sri Ajay Bhanot and Sri R. P. S. Chauhan counsel for petitioners, standing counsel and Sri V. K. Singh counsel for respondents. The following points arise for determination ; (i) Whether benefit under Section 122b (4f) of the Z. A. Act can be given over land vested in a local authority other than Gaon Sabha? (ii) Whether the land in dispute was vested in the Gaon Sabha. Rlthaura on the relevant date under Section 122b of the Z. A. Act? 1st POINT : BENEFIT--ONLY OVER GAON SABHA LAND ( 6 ) RULES 115c to 115h of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules (the Z. A. Rules) provide summary procedure for ejectment of trespassers. These rules were declared illegal by the High Court. Section 122b was introduced by U. P. Act No. 38 of 1961 to provide necessary sanction of law for the summary procedure for ejectment of a trespasser. Sub-section (1) of Section 122b [section 122b (1)] of the Z. A. Act provides for speedy recovery of property of Gaon Sabha or a local authority, it also permits imposing compensation for damages, misappropriation or wrongful occupation of such property. ( 7 ) SECTION 122b as enacted did not contain Sub-section (4f ). It was introduced by U. P. Act No. 30 of 1975. Section 122b (4f) of the Z. A. Act (quoted below) is an exception to Section 122b. It starts with notwithstanding clause and provides that the authorities will take no action under section 122b in case conditions mentioned in Sub-section (4f) are fulfilled. One of the conditions was that the land should have been occupied prior to June 30. 1975. The date 30th june, 1975 has been amended since then, and now by U. P. Act No. 9 of 1997. it has been substituted by June 3. 1995. One of the conditions was that the land should have been occupied prior to June 30. 1975. The date 30th june, 1975 has been amended since then, and now by U. P. Act No. 9 of 1997. it has been substituted by June 3. 1995. ( 8 ) SECTION 122b (1) of the Z. A. Act provides for eviction from the land not only vested in a gaon Sabha but also in a local authority, i. e. , to say. Sub-section (1) specifically refers to Gaon sabha and local authority but Section 122b (4f) only provides for benefit over land vested in a gaon Sabha. It does not refer to local authority. This shows that the benefit under Section 122b (4f) is available only in respect of land vested in a Gaon Sabha and does not extend to land vested in the Stale or in any other authority apart from Gaon Sabha. The Board of Revenue in its two decisions (quoted below) has rightly taken the view that benefit under Section 122b (4f)can be given in respect of land vested in Gaon Sabha. Of course, a person has to fulfil other conditions mentioned in that Sub-section before the benefit can be given. 2nd POINT : LAND IN DISPUTE-NOT OF GAON SABHA ( 9 ) NOTIFICATION dated 10. 4. 1974 declaring Gaon Sabha, Rithaura to be Town Area, Rithaura was issued under Section 3 of the T. A. Act. This section prescribed conditions on which any village could be declared a town area. Here, there is no challenge to the notification, but the dispute relates only to its legal consequences. ( 10 ) SECTION 8 (quoted below) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (the Panchayat Raj Act)provides that in case whole or part of the area of a Gram Panchayat is included in any other local body, the Gram Panchayat would cease, and its assets and liabilities would stand transferred in the manner prescribed. This manner is prescribed in Rule 3aaa of the Panchayat Raj Rules (quoted below ). Sub-rule (1) of this Rule [rule 3aaa (1)] is applicable when whole area of gaon Sabha is included in a local authority. Sub-rule (2) of this rule is applicable when only part of Gaon Sabha land is included in any other local authority. This manner is prescribed in Rule 3aaa of the Panchayat Raj Rules (quoted below ). Sub-rule (1) of this Rule [rule 3aaa (1)] is applicable when whole area of gaon Sabha is included in a local authority. Sub-rule (2) of this rule is applicable when only part of Gaon Sabha land is included in any other local authority. Rule 3aaa (1) provides that the gaon Sabha shall cease and its all assets and liabilities shall be transferred to the local authority. If the Gaon Sabha is not in existence, then it cannot hold any property. So is the case here, Gaon sabha, Rithaura was declared Town Area. Rithaura on 10th April. 1974 ; it ceased to exist and could not hold any property after that date. ( 11 ) I have already held that Section 122b (4f) is applicable on the land vested in a Gaon Sabha. Gaon Sabha, Rithaura was neither in existence, nor held any land on the relevant date under this section 122b (4f) of the Z. A. Act, its benefit cannot be given to the petitioner. SHAFI CASE IS NOT APPLICABLE ( 12 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner has brought to my notice Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 117 and Section 117a and submitted that till a fresh notification is made in favour of Town Area, rithaura, the property in dispute will continue to vest in Gaon Sabha, Rithaura even though it may not be in existence. He has also cited a Division Bench decision in Mohd. Shajl v. Gram sabha Bisauli, 1970 RD 450 (Shafi case) to support his submissions. ( 13 ) IN Shafi case, Gaon Sabha, Bisauli had filed a suit for ejectment. It was dismissed. Gaon sabha, Bisauli filed an appeal. During pendency of the appeal, part of property of Gaon Sabha, bisauli (which included property in dispute in that case) was included in the Town Area, achhalda. The defendant filed an application to dismiss the appeal on the ground that Gaon sabha, Bisauli was not entitled to maintain the appeal as the property was vested in Town Area, achhalda. This application was dismissed. The defendant filed a revision. In this revision. the question of maintainability of appeal by Gaon Sabha, Bisauli was referred to the larger Bench. The defendant filed an application to dismiss the appeal on the ground that Gaon sabha, Bisauli was not entitled to maintain the appeal as the property was vested in Town Area, achhalda. This application was dismissed. The defendant filed a revision. In this revision. the question of maintainability of appeal by Gaon Sabha, Bisauli was referred to the larger Bench. The Division Bench of this Court, while deciding the reference, made some observations whether Gaon Sabha Bisauli, continued to be vested with the property or not, but these observations are merely obiter and were not necessary for deciding the case. The Court (in paragraphs 4 and 8) held : "in the present case, some of the plots included in territorial limits of the Gram Sabha, Bisauli, have been included in the territorial limits of the Town Area, Achhalda. So, the Gram Sabha, bisauli did not cease to exist, but its jurisdiction was excluded in relation to such plots. Under Section 34, the property belonged to the Gaon Sabha. The same stood transferred to the town Area. There was no change in the nature, or quality or quantum of the rights. This is a case of assignment of the interest. Since it has been effected by force of the statutory rules, the assignment is statutory, to which Order XXII, Rule 10, C. P. C,, will apply. " ( 14 ) ONCE the Court held that the case was covered by Order XXII, Rule 10, then the suit could be continued by the Gaon Sabha, Bisauli or by the Town Area, Achhalda by leave of the Court and appeal by Gaon Sabha, Bisauli was competent. It was not necessary to decide whether the property continued to vest in Gaon Sabha, Bisauli or not. The cases covered by Order XXII, rule 10. unlike the case covered by Rule 3 or Rule 4, do not abate. Sarkars Law on Civil procedure 9th Edition Vol. 2 (page 1670) explains : "order XXII, Rule 10 is based on the principle that trial of a suit cannot be brought to an end merely because interest of a party in the subject-matter of the suit has devolved upon another during the pendency of the suit, but that suit may be continued against the person acquiring the interest with the leave of the Court Rikhu v. Som, AIR 1975 SC 2159 . Rule 10 enables only continuance of the suit by leave of the Court. Where by reason of Rule 3 or Rule 4, as the case may be, there is abatement there would be no scope for continuance Goutami v. Madhavan, AIR 1977 K 83 FB. " ( 15 ) APART from above, the Shafi case, was concerned with question when only part of the property of Gaon Sabha was transferred to the Town Area. It was not the case where the Gaon sabha itself was declared to be a Town Area. The Court in the Shafi case, itself pointed out the differences. This is clear from paragraph 10 of the report. The Court in this paragraph cited an unreported decision of a single Judge in Town Area Committee Kore Jahanabad v. Rai Bahadur adya Saran Singh (Adya Saran case). This decision is a case where Gaon Sabha itself was declared a Town Area, as the case in the writ petition. The single Judge in the Adya Saran case, held : "the moment Gaon Sabha ceased, the property would revert back to the State. " ( 16 ) THE Division Bench in the Shafi case, while dealing with it observed : this proposition may apply where the entire territories of the Gaon Sabha are transferred with the result that the Gaon Sabha ceased, but, we are unable to hold that the same consequence would follow where only a part of the area of the Gaon Sabha is transferred to a Town Area or any other local body. In such a case, the existing rights of the Gaon Sabha in the land would continue to remain vested in the Gaon Sabha. " this shows that Shafi case, itself made a distinction between the case where the Gaon Sabha ceased as in the present case and the case where Gaon Sabha continued to exist but only part of its property was transferred. The Shafi case is not applicable to the facts of this case. On the contrary, these two cases show that when a Gaon Sabha is declared to be Town Area, it ceases and is no longer vested with any property. SOME OBSERVATIONS ( 17 ) IN this case, I have considered the question whether Gaon Sabha, Rithaura is vested with the land in dispute or not ; I have negated it. On the contrary, these two cases show that when a Gaon Sabha is declared to be Town Area, it ceases and is no longer vested with any property. SOME OBSERVATIONS ( 17 ) IN this case, I have considered the question whether Gaon Sabha, Rithaura is vested with the land in dispute or not ; I have negated it. The question, whether the Town Area, Rithaura and thereafter Nagar Panchayat, Rithaura is vested with land in dispute is not involved here. Some observations, regarding this question, have been made in Adya Saran and Shafi case. I would like to make few observations. ( 18 ) ADYA Saran case has held that Gaon Sabha after it ceased to exist did not hold any land, and the same reverted back to the State. It has also held that the Town Area is not the owner, till it is proved that the land was transferred to the Town Area. This, to my humble submission, is not correct. Rule 3aaa (1) indicates that in such event, assets and liabilities are transferred and the transfer being automatic does not require any fresh notification under Section 117 (1) of the Z. A. Act. Two single Judges--one in a case relating to Town Area (quoted below) and the other in a case relating to Nagar Palika (quoted below)--have rightly held that transfer is automatic and does not require any fresh notification. I would have referred this question to the larger Bench if i had to decide this question. ( 19 ) I have already Indicated that the Shafi case, is not applicable here and the observations made by the Division Bench that property is not vested in the town area are obiter. Apart from it, in my humble opinion, observations regarding Section 117, 117a of Z. A. Act and Rule 3aaa (2) of the Panchayat Raj Rules by the Court are not correct. Section 117 (2) or Section 117a of the Z. A. Act perhaps applies to a case when property within the jurisdiction of one local authority is vested in any other local authority. But in case the property itself falls within the jurisdiction of other local authority, then they do not apply. Rule 3aaa (2) (a) and (b) are also relevant and clarify this point. But in case the property itself falls within the jurisdiction of other local authority, then they do not apply. Rule 3aaa (2) (a) and (b) are also relevant and clarify this point. Perhaps the moment the property of Gaon Sabha goes to another local authority then the other local authority becomes owner immediately, and no fresh notification is necessary ; but this will await a suitable case. CONCLUSION ( 20 ) MY conclusions are as follows: (i) Benefit under Section 122b (4f) can only be given over land vested in a Gaon Sabha. (ii) When Gaon Sabha is declated to be a town area or Nagar Panchayat, then it ceases to exist and is divested of all properties. (iii) Gaon Sabha, Rithaura ceased to exist on 10th April, 1974 and did not hold any property on the relevant date under Section 122b (4f) of the Z. A. Act, the petitioners did not acquire any rights over the land in dispute. (iv) The petitions have no merits and are dismissed.