JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a second appeal against the judgment of Sri Saiyid Husain, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division dated September 1, 1973 in Appeal No. 202 of 1971 in suit No. 19 of 1970-71 under Sections 229-B/209, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone though the record. The respondents have failed to appear in spite of due notice. 3. The main ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Additional Commissioner has exceeded his jurisdiction in remanding the case on the ground that no notice under Section 106, Panchayat Raj Act had been given. According to the learned counsel no separate notice under Section 106, Panchayat Raj Act was necessary, and the lower appellate court has erred in holding to the contrary. 4. The contention of the learned counsel must be accepted. All that the law requires is that in a suit under Section 229-B the Gaon Sabha shall be made a party. This requirement has been met is both the Gaon Sabha and the State of Uttar Pradesh were impleaded as defendants in the suit. The law does not require that any notice under Section 106, Panchayat Raj Act is also necessary. 5. This requirement has been met is both the Gaon Sabha and the State of Uttar Pradesh were impleaded as defendants in the suit. The law does not require that any notice under Section 106, Panchayat Raj Act is also necessary. 5. Section 106, Panchayat Raj Act reads as follows:- "106 Suits against Gaon Sabhas, Gaon Panchayats, their officers, or the officers and servants of Nyaya Panchayats-(1) No suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted against a Gaon Sabha or Gaon Panchayat (or officer or relevant thereof or of Nayaya Panchayat) or against any person acting under the direction of any of these bodies of persons for anything done or purporting to have been done in official capacity under this Act, until the expiration of 2 months next after notice in writing has been, in the case of Gaon Sabha or Gaon Panchayat, delivered in or left at the office of the Gaon Panchayat concerned and in the case of a member officer or servant of any person acting under his direction or the direction of the Gaon Sabha or Gaon Panchayat or Nyaya Panchayat delivered to him or left at his office or place of abode, explicitly stating the cause of action, the nature of the relief sought, the amount of compensation, if any, claimed and the name and place of abode of the intending plaintiff and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left. (2) No action such as is described in sub-section (1) shall be commenced otherwise than within six months next after the accrual of the cause of action." It would be seen the Section 106, Panchayat Raj Act has relevance only when an act of omission or commission by the Gaon Panchayat or any of its office bearers is challenged. It has no relevance whatsoever to a declaratory suit. The learned Additional Commissioner has taken an erroneous view of law in holding that a notice under Section 106, Panchayat Raj Act was necessary. He has also exceeded his jurisdiction in remanding the case on this ground. 6. The result is that I hereby allow the appeal, set aside the order of the lower appellate court and direct that it shall hear and decide the first appeal on merits.