KRISHNA MURARI, J.

Heard Sri T. B. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

2. Though the case has been taken up in the revised list but no one appeared on behalf of the respondents.

3. The facts are that the petitioner filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act (for short the Act) in the Court of Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Azamgarh on the allegation inter alia that he is the sirdar in the land in dis pute and the entry of the name of respondent No. 7 is forged and fabri cated and is liable to be expunged. The suit was contested by respondent No. 7 raising an objection apart from others that the land in dispute was not land within the meaning of Section 3 (14) of the Act and as such, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. One of the issues namely, issue No. (4) framed by the trial Court was whether the land in suit are land within the meaning of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act. In accordance with the provision of Section 331-A of the Act, the trial Court referred the issue for being decided by the sub- divisional of ficer. " The sub-divisional officer sub mitted a report dated 7-1-1968 that the property in dispute is not being used for the purpose

Click Here to Read the rest of this document