( 1 ) HEARD Sri P. K. Misra learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Faujdar Rai appearing for the contesting respondent Nos. 6 to 11.

( 2 ) SHORN of unnecessarily details, the facts relevant for the purpose of the case are that suit filed by the contesting respondents under Section 229b read with Section 209 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act was decreed by the trial court on 7. 12. 1977, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appellate court vide judgment dated 22. 11. 1979, allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the trial court. The findings of the trial court on issue Nos. 1 and 2 were set aside. The appellate court reframed the said two issues and directed the trial court to hear and decide the case afresh after recording the findings on the reframed Issue Nos. 1 and 2. The finding of the trial court on issue Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 were confirmed.

( 3 ) AFTER remand, the trial court instead of deciding the two issues reframed by the appellate court framed as many as 12 issues and decreed the suit on 28. 4. 1984. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the court of first appeal on 2. 8. 1984. The second appeal filed by the pet