JUDGMENT

I.B. Singh, Member. - These are three reference against order dated March 8, 1978, passed by Tahsildar/Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Konch, District Jalaun in cases under Rule 115-C of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules ordering ejectment and imposing damages against the applicants.

2. The learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division by his orders dated July 30, 1978, July 31, 1978 and July 31, 1978 has recommended to pertly allow the revision application and to set aside the orders of the court regarding damages only and to dismiss the revision applications partly and to confirm the orders regarding ejectment.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants and learned D.G.C. (R.), Jhansi at length and have perused the record.

4. The Lekhpal had reported that applicant Shyam Lal had trespassed over 48 yards x 48 yards and Rama over 48 yards x 43 yards and Kripa over .27 acres of Gaon Sabha land in different plots by constructing houses or walls. Notices were issued to the applicants who had filed objections alleging that they had got themselves operated for vasectomy, on account of which the disputed land was allotted to them by Gaon Sabha by its resolution dated January 23, 1977 and that they were not trespassers and were not liable to ejectment.

5. The learned lower court dismissed the objections and ordered ejectment of the applicants and imposed Rs. 300/- as damages against each of them.

6. It has been argued on behalf of the applicants that they were not rank trespassers. The disputed land was allotted to them by the L.M.C. by its resolution and in bona fide belief that the L.M.C. was empowered to allot the land to them as they had complied the condition of having got operated for vasectomy according to Government scheme the land was delivered to them by Lekhpal in view of the resolution and they had constructed their houses, therefore, they were not liable to ejectment in the summary proceeding under Rule 115-C read with Section 122-B of Ac I of 1951. Reliance has been placed on Govind Ram v. Gaon Sabha, 1975 R.D. 127 and Kanhaiya Lal v. Gaon Sabha, 1979 R.D. 106.

7. It has been argued in reply that allotment under Section 122-C(2) without previous permission of the S.D.O. is illegal and according to Rule 115-N allotment according to Rule 115-L, and Rule 115-N-8 the previous sanction of the S.D.O. is essential, without such sanction the allotment is void ab initio and has got no legal sanctity and the applicants are liable to ejectment in summary proceedings. Reliance has been placed on Charan Das v. Gaon Sabha, 1979 R.D. 300 Rasool Ahmad Nooruddin v. Beni Prasad, 1965 R.D. 79, Ram Chander v. Hukum Chandra, 1976 R.D. 185 and Janta Junior High School v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1979 R.D. 434. It was further argued that the granting of lease or Patta is a contract and if it is granted illegally it is void according to Section 23 of the Contract Act and that there is a difference between Section 209 and Section 122-B of Act I of 1951. In Section 122-B if the land is occupied otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act by any person, action against him can be taken and in Section 209 when the possession is taken or retained without consent and in contravention of the provisions of the law, action can be taken against such person and possession in colour of invalid title is possession otherwise than in accordance with law and action is maintainable. Reliance has been placed on Mahendra Prakash v. Commissioner, Meerut Division, 1970 A.W.R. 408, Prem Raji v. Jhungi Nath, 1964 R.D. 130, Raja Harbansh Singh Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya v. Land Management Committee, 1971 R.D. 514, Collector of Bombay v. Municipal Corporation of City of Bombay and others, 1951 S.C. 469, Gram Samaj v. Hari Ram, 1973 R.D. 430, Raja Harbansh Singh Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidhlaya v. Land Management Committee, 1972 R.D. 392 and Raghubir v. Shanker, 1974 R.D. 334.

8. Section 122-C(2) is not applicable to the pres