JUDGMENT

KRISHNA IYER, J.:—Two principal submissions, whose implications perhaps are of profound moment and have public impact, have been, at wide-ranging length, urged in this appeal by certificate, by Shri Shanti Bhusan, for the appellant/defendant and, with effective brevity controverted by the Solicitor General, for respondent/1st plaintiff. The two focal points of the controversy are; (a) Is the appeal to the High Court by the State/1st plaintiff at all competent, entitlement as a party aggrieved being absent, having regard to the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 1950 (U. P. Act 1 of 1951) (for short, the Act) ?; and (b)Is it sound to conceptualise area appurtenant to buildings in Section 9 of the Act so narrowly as has been done by the High Court ? There were two plaintiffs - the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Gaon Sabha of Bedpura - claiming common but alternative reliefs. The suit was for injuction or ejectment, on title, of the sole defendant who was the quondam zamindar of the estate which is the subject-matter of the suit. The trial Court dismissed the suit whereupon the 2nd plaintiff dropped out of the litigation, as it were, and the Sta