JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. The petitioner challenges the orders dated 03.11.2006, passed by the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner in Reference Number 2 of 2002/2003 and the Order dated 03.01.1994, passed by the Pargana Adhikari. Before dealing with the legal controversy, certain factual backdrop is necessarily required to be taken into consideration. 2. The facts are that as per the record which has been brought up by the petitioner in this writ petition is that the land in dispute lies in khata number 159, khasra number 1080, 1081 and 1082 having an area of 0.45, 0.10, 0.35 hectares respectively. The name of Mohan Singh stood recorded from 1377 to 1379 fasli. Mohan Singh is said to have met with the sad demise and prior to his death according to the petitioner he executed a Will in relation to his properties by virtue of which he has bequeathed his entire property as referred in khatauni, pertaining to 1372 to 1379 fasli in favour of the petitioner. 3. After the death of Mohan Singh and as an effect of the bequeath of the property the petitioners filed there application for getting themselves recorded in the record of rights and accordingly they are shown to have been recorded in the khatauni from 1394 to 1399 fasli, as depicted in its column number 2 they are recorded as shreni 1 ka bhumidhar with transferable rights, as provided under Section 129 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that Mohan Singh prior to his death had executed a Will on 15.03.1971, and it was under the strength of the will and for the reason that Mohan Singh was issueless and that the petitioners used to take care of Mohan Singh he has bequeath his property by the Will dated 15.03.1971, out of love and affection and accordingly on the basis of the said Will, they had been recorded in revenue records. One Mr. Hukum Singh is said to have filed an objection purporting it to be an objection under Rule 172 of the Rules of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952, wherein he has contended that in accordance with said provisions, the property on the death of a deceased should be vested with the Gaon Sabha/Land Management Committee. 5. In view of the provisions contained under Section 194 for the purposes of declaration for extinction of tenure holder’s right. 5. In view of the provisions contained under Section 194 for the purposes of declaration for extinction of tenure holder’s right. Rule 172 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952 is quoted hereunder for purposes of its close scrutiny:- “172. Section 230(2)(i)- (1) An application under Section 194 for declaration of the extinction of tenure-holder’s rights shall be filed in the court of Assistant Collector in charge of the Sub-Division by the Land Management Committee in whose local jurisdiction the extinction has occurred. Where on the application of the Land Management Committee or on facts coming to his notice otherwise, the Assistant Collector is satisfied that there is a prima facie, case for declaration of the extinction of the tenureholder’s rights under Section 194, he shall issue a proclamation in Z.A. Form 57 and where the tenure-holder is alive, a copy of the proclamation shall be served on him in person asking him to show cause why the declaration in question should not be granted. (2) The Assistant Collector shall, on the date fixed in the proclamation, and after personal service, if required, has been effected, proceed to make such inquiry as he deems necessary. (3) If after inquiry, he comes to the conclusion that a declaration in favour of the Land Management Committee should be made, he shall make a declaration to that effect and specify the numbers of the plots with their respective areas of which the Committee is entitled to take a possession. The possession shall then be delivered to the Committee on behalf of the Gaon Sabha (Subs. By Noti. No. 5846/I-A-270-60) in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 154.” 6. Rule 172 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952 specifically contemplates that for extinction of right of a tenure-holder is concerned, it could be on an application which has to be filed before the Assistant Collector in charge of the Sub Division “by the Land Management Committee of a local jurisdiction”. The term Land Management Committee has been defined under Section 28-A of the Panchayat Raj Act. It means a Gram Panchayat which shall contain a Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti, who would be responsible to discharge such functions and such duties to upkeep, protect and supervise all the property belonging to or vested in Gram Panchayat under Section 117 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 7. It means a Gram Panchayat which shall contain a Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti, who would be responsible to discharge such functions and such duties to upkeep, protect and supervise all the property belonging to or vested in Gram Panchayat under Section 117 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 7. The Panchayat Raj Act also defines Bhoomi Prabandhak Samiti under sub Clause (x) of Section 2 which means a body constituted in accordance with the Section 28-A. As far as the Panchayat Raj Act is concerned, it defines Gram Sabha, means a body established under Section 3 which is constituted by the persons registered in the electoral roll of a village. Under Section 3 of Panchayati Raj Act while defining Gram Sabha, it simply provides the creation of a body of a group of villagers irrespective of name with which it is called by issuing a Notification in the Official Gazette. But its’ wider purpose could be attained only by the functioning of the Land Management Committee which will be a constituent body as provided under Section 28-A of the Act to act as a body for local self government. 8. After having been recorded on the basis of the Will and the entries having been made in the khatauni pertaining to 1394 to 1399 fasli, the issue which has cropped up at the behest of objection filed by Hukum Singh was that the property ought to be vested with the Gram Sabha in view of the provisions contained under Rule 172. Hukum Singh submitted that the entries made in favour of the petitioners dates back to 1971, which was made on the basis of the Will was contrary to Section 33-A of the Land Revenue Act. On a simple reading of Section 33-A it deals with the recording of entries in the Annual Register in the cases of uncontested succession which is not the case here, as it does not pertain to uncontested succession. 9. Here it is not the case which would be covered under Section 33-A, because the petitioner’s right was being settled on the basis of the Will dated 15.03.1971. The objection thus filed by Hukum Singh was rejected by the Tehsildar vide its order dated 31.12.1971. 9. Here it is not the case which would be covered under Section 33-A, because the petitioner’s right was being settled on the basis of the Will dated 15.03.1971. The objection thus filed by Hukum Singh was rejected by the Tehsildar vide its order dated 31.12.1971. Not only this prior to it Gram Sabha is said to have passed a Resolution No. 8 dated 28.08.1971, wherein a crucial fact which stood verified was that at the time of Mohan Singh’s death the petitioner was residing with him along with the father for last 8-9 years and they have taken care of the well being of Mohan Singh and have performed his last funeral rites. 10. There after the decision as rendered on 31.12.1971 recording the petitioners on the basis of Will dated 15.03.1971, in the case No. 30/70-71, this order dated 15.03.1971 remains un-challenge and according to the petitioner, the same has attained finality. Though it was the objection filed by the Hukum Singh taking into consideration Rule 172 any subsequent application filed or which takes the shape of an application under Rule 171 at the behest of anyone will not be tenable as it would be barred by principle of res-judicata as well as it would not be maintainable in view of the provisions contained under Rule 172 itself because it only contemplates of an application to be filed at the behest of Land Management Committee for extinction of a right and vesting of the property in them. No one else is entitled to file an application for vesting of property except the Land Management Committee. 11. It was that at a later stage i.e. way back after 1971, that one Amar Singh and others are said to have filed an application akin to the application filed by way of Case No. 30/70-71 by Hukum Singh, wherein yet again they had tried to invoke the provisions of Rule 172 praying for extinction of right and vesting of the property in the Gaon Sabha. It is this application on which the impugned order dated 03.01.1994 has been passed by the Pargana Adhikari. It is this application on which the impugned order dated 03.01.1994 has been passed by the Pargana Adhikari. It was at this stage when the proceeding was being deciding an issue was also raised as to whether Mohan Singh, who belonged to a scheduled caste could have transferred the property by virtue of a Will in favour of the petitioners, because the petitioners belong to an upper caste on account of the bar created by Section 157-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 12. Before venturing further, it is necessary to point out at this stage itself that the transfer which has taken place in favour of the petitioners based on the Will dated 15.03.1971 and thereafter the same having been recorded, as would be apparent from the order dated 31.12.1971, had been passed much prior to the insertion of 157-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act had under gone an amendment by U.P. Land Amendment Act 1982, that by the UP Act of 20/1982 as enforced with effect from 11.05.1982 by publication in the official Gazette Notification dated 20.08.1982. An insertion has been made of Section 157-B, which intended to create a restriction on transfer of holding belonging to a scheduled caste to an upper caste or a caste other than scheduled caste and the condition that it could only be done with a prior consent of the Assistant Collector, since being a provision which was inserted at a later stage with effect from 03.06.1981, the same would not be having any bearing on the transfer made on the basis of a Will dated 15.03.1971, may be that even if the Will is taken as to be one of the mode of transfer. 13. The logic being the restriction in transfer by virtue of an impact under Section 157-B, since would be social and procedural restriction, it will never have any impact with regards to transfer which has been acted upon prior to 1981 because such prior transfer cannot be set back to knot. Thus the contention agitated that the transfer made by virtue of a Will dated 15.03.1971 would be barred by Section 157-B fails and is not acceptable by this Court. 14. The subsequent application which has been filed by Amar Singh and others on 14.07.1987, was at a much belated stage wherein they have yet again invoked Rule 172. Thus the contention agitated that the transfer made by virtue of a Will dated 15.03.1971 would be barred by Section 157-B fails and is not acceptable by this Court. 14. The subsequent application which has been filed by Amar Singh and others on 14.07.1987, was at a much belated stage wherein they have yet again invoked Rule 172. It is this application which has been allowed. While allowing the application by the order dated 03.01.1994 the learned Assistant Collector quashed the order dated 03.06.1971 and directed to delete the name of Inder Singh and Mahendra Singh, who were recorded on the basis of a Will dated 15.03.1971 and thereafter further direction was issued that the appropriate direction may be issued to ex-punch the name of the petitioner from the records. 15. It is on this order dated 03.01.1994, a reference was made being Reference Number 20 of 2002-2003 it was filed which has been decided by the Additional Commissioner by the order dated 03.11.2006 holding thereof that the order dated 03.01.1994 may not be approved and the reference maybe accordingly decided and the same was referred to the Additional Commissioner for setting aside the order dated 03.01.1994. Relevant part of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner is referred herein below :- Þvr,o i=koyh ekuuh; jktLo ifj”kn~ dks ijxuk vf/kdkjh nsgjknwu }kjk ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 03-01-1994 dk dk;kZUo;u LFkfxr djrs gq, bl laLrqfr ds lkFk lanfHkZr dh tkrh gS fd ijxuk vf/kdkjh nsgjknwu }kjk okn la- 25@89&90 es ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 03-01-1994 fujLr fd;k tk;ß 16. Learned Additional Commissioner while making the reference, while suspending the order dated 03.01.1994, with a recommendation that the reference may be accepted by the order dated 03.01.1994, directing to expunge the name of the petitioner and to extinguish their rights and to vest the property with the Gaon Sabha maybe set aside. The learned Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner by the impugned order dated 12.11.2006 has rejected the reference made on 18.05.1995 and had approved the impugned order passed by the Pargana Magistrate on 03.06.1994 thereby affirming the same, directing to expunge the name of the petitioner and vesting property with Gaon Sabha. 17. The learned Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner by the impugned order dated 12.11.2006 has rejected the reference made on 18.05.1995 and had approved the impugned order passed by the Pargana Magistrate on 03.06.1994 thereby affirming the same, directing to expunge the name of the petitioner and vesting property with Gaon Sabha. 17. The order which has been passed by Assistant Chief Revenue Commissioner, impugned in the writ petition it has not taken into consideration the fact that as to whether the application at the behest of Hukum Singh would be maintainable, in view of the provisions contained under Rule 172, which exclusively casts a right only to the Land Management Committee for moving an application for extinction of a right over are the land because on an extinction of a right over the land the consequential benefits would be that the property would vest back with Gram Sabha/Land Management Committee. Thus a private person could not have invoked the provisions contained under Rule 172. The Court of Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner had further not rightly considered the impact of earlier order passed whereby on the basis of the Will dated 15.03.1971, the petitioners were recorded, in those proceedings Gaon Sabha had participated and they had the knowledge of the same yet the order thus passed was not challenged that they have acquired their right. 18. Having accepted the propriety of the said order recording petitioner on the basis of Will, the Gaon Sabha cannot now without challenging the earlier order passed, can have any stand that the entry made based on a Will dated 15.03.1971, in favour of petitioner was bad because the order directing to record the name of the petitioner would equally be binding on the Land Management Committee/Gaon Sabha. 19. There is another aspect of the matter that admittedly the petitioners on the basis of the Will dated 15.03.1971 stand recorded in the khatauni as shreni 1 kastkar that is a bhumidhar with transferable rights. Those entries which have been made are the entries which are long standing entries, having been made in 1971, thus the subsequent objection filed by Amar Singh and others in 1987 would not be maintainable, seeking expunction of land building entries by invoking Rule 172 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952. 20. Accordingly the writ petition succeeds. Those entries which have been made are the entries which are long standing entries, having been made in 1971, thus the subsequent objection filed by Amar Singh and others in 1987 would not be maintainable, seeking expunction of land building entries by invoking Rule 172 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952. 20. Accordingly the writ petition succeeds. Impugned orders dated 03.11.2006 passed by Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner and order dated 03.01.1994 passed by Pargana Adhikar, Dehradun are quashed. The entry made in favour of the petitioner in the khatauni based on the Will dated 15.03.1971 prior to the amendment under Section 157-B stands affirmed.