ORDER S.N. Singh, J. - This petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of proceedings u/s 209 of the UP ZA and LR Act. 2. The Plaintiff Petitioner instituted a suit u/s 209 of the UP ZA and LR Act for the ejectment of the Defendant on the allegation that Defendant was a trespasser. The Defendant claimed tenureholder's right. The trial court after considering the entire matter came to the conclusion that Plaintiff's claim was established and decreed the suit holding the Plaintiff to be the tenure-holder and also for damages. 3. The Defendant preferred an appeal and the Additional Commissioner, faizabad Division, relying on a decision of the Board of Revenue--Jag Prasad Dubey v. Ram Dayal 1960 AWR 128 (Rev) set aside the decree and directed remand of the case with a direction to implead the State Government and the Gaon Samaj as parties to the suit and then to decide the case afresh. 4. The Plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue. This appeal was dismissed. Thereafter the present writ petition has been filed. 5. During the pendency of this writ petition Section 209 of the UP ZA and LR Act itself was amended and it was made obligatory on Plaintiff instituting the suit u/s 209 of the said Act to implead the State Government as a party. When this writ petition came up for hearing it was argued on behalf of the opposite parties that in view of the new amendment of Section 209 of the Act the State Government has become a necessary party and the view that the Board of Revenue was taking has made this writ petition infructuous. It was submitted even if this petition was allowed and the case was sent back for decision in view of the recent decision of the Board of Revenue which has been upheld by this Court in Jagdish Prasad v. Board of Revenue and Ors. Special Appeal No. 624 of 1964 the Board would again send back the case for the impleadment of the State. In view of the Division Bench case I referred two points for a decision by a larger Bench. The two points referred were: (i) What is the effect of the amendment of Section 209 of the UP ZA and Lk Act by the Amending Act 21 of 1962 on pending appeals? In view of the Division Bench case I referred two points for a decision by a larger Bench. The two points referred were: (i) What is the effect of the amendment of Section 209 of the UP ZA and Lk Act by the Amending Act 21 of 1962 on pending appeals? (ii) Is it obligatory on the appellate court after the above amendment to direct the impleadment of the State Government and set aside validly obtained decree without going into the merits of the case? The Full Bench has given its answer to the two questions formulated above. It has been held that after the introduction of Act 21 of 1962 it is not obligatory on the appellate court to implead the State Government and set aside the validly obtained decree without going into the merits of the case and that the amendment has no effect on pending appeals. 6. In view of the answer by the Full Bench the argument of the learned Counsel that in any case the case will be remanded to the trial court for the impleadment of the State cannot be accepted. Now it has to be seen whether the order passed by the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue could be quashed irrespective of the recent amendment of 1962. The suit out of which this writ petition arises was a suit u/s 209 of the LJPZA and LR Act before the amendment-of 1962. Section 209 of the UPZA and LR Act never provided for the impleadment of the UP State. Therefore, it was not necessary for a Plaintiff to implead the State nor it appears that any objection was taken before the trial court for such impleadment. When the decree was passed and it came before the first appellate court such an objection appears to have been taken. The Additional Commissioner without applying his mind as to whether it was necessary to the facts of this case to implead the State Government relying on a decision of the Board of Revenue remanded the case with a direction to implead the State and Gaon Samaj. Before applying the ruling of the Board the Additional Commissioner should have considered as to whether it was necessary for the decision of the case that the UP State and Gaon Samaj should be impleaded. Before applying the ruling of the Board the Additional Commissioner should have considered as to whether it was necessary for the decision of the case that the UP State and Gaon Samaj should be impleaded. If the Commissioner thought that for a complete decision of the case the UP State and Gaon Samaj should have been impleaded he himself could have directed the impleadment of UP State and Gaon Samaj before him and it was only when they contested the claim of the Plaintiff then he could have thought of the advisability of the remand otherwise not. If the State and Gaon Samaj did not contest there was no question of the remand. In the circumstances of this case I am of opinion that unless the Commissioner considered the entire matter the order passed cannot be justified. The Board has also upheld the order of the Commissioner simply on account of the view that in this case question of rival tenancy was involved. 7. In view of the principle laid down by the Full Bench it is clear that it was not obligatory on the part of the first appellate court to have directed the impleadment of the State or Gaon Samaj in the circumstances of the case. In case the Commissioner considers the impleadment necessary for the complete adjudication of the controversy before him he himself could direct the impleadment of the State and the Gaon Samaj and it is only when they disputed the right of the Plaintiff then the question of remand may arise otherwise not. 8. For the reasons given above and for the reasons given by the Full Bench this petition is allowed, the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 23rd January, 1962 and that of the Commissioner dated 31st May 1961 are hereby quashed and the Additional Commissioner opposite party No. 2 is directed to restore the appeal to its original number and decide it in accordance with law. In the circumstances of this case I make no order as to costs. Petition allowed Editor's Note--The Full Bench decision will be reported later on.