JUDGMENT P.C. Saxena, Member. - This is a Reference dated 28-11-1973 made by Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra in a case under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. The facts are briefly that a suit. Under section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act had been filed in the trial court and the question had arisen at a preliminary state of the proceeding whether one of the plots in suit i.e. plot no. 1025 was land within the definition of Section 3(14) of the Z.A. and L.R. Act or otherwise. An issue was framed on this point by the trial court and sent to he S.D.O. concerned for a finding. The learned S.D.O. held that plot No. 1025 was land and not abadi. 3. The revision application against this finding has been recommended for dismissal by the learned Additional Commissioner. 4. In arguments before me, learned counsel for the opposite party has cited a ruling reported in 1965 R.D. page 190 in which the Board of Revenue has held that no revision lies against the finding of the S.D.O. under Sec. 321-A of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Another ruling cited form 1969 R.D. 149 is not relevant at this stage as it torches the merits of the disputed on this point. 5. The finding of the S.D.O. under section 331-A of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act finally and conclusively decides the question as to whether the trial court shall have jurisdiction to proceed with the original case or nor. If the finding is to the effect that the land is not being used for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry it is obvious that the trail court in which the suit has been instituted will have no jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing in respect of that land. Sub-section 4 of the Sec. 331-A provide that the finding of the S.D.O. on the issued referred to him shall for purposes of appeal be deemed to be part of the finding of the court which referred the issue. It, therefore, follows that a finding under Sec. 331-A cannot be treated on the same level as an interlocutory order and a revision application must be deemed to lie. It, therefore, follows that a finding under Sec. 331-A cannot be treated on the same level as an interlocutory order and a revision application must be deemed to lie. The Jurisdiction of the trial court itself is disputed and it would be submitting the parties to a course of unnecessary litigation in case it is held that they cannot be allowed to challenge the finding immediately in a superior court. With all respect therefore, I find myself unable to agree with the view taken by the learned Member in the ruling cited above. 6. So far as the merits of the finding itself are concerned, I find that the learned S.D.O. has not cared to give any reason for the same. He has merely stated the position adopted by the two parties and without giving any reasons concluded the plot no. 125 constitutes land within the meaning of Sec. 3 of the Act. The finding, therefore, cannot be sustained. 7. Learned counsel for opposite party has also argued that subsequent to the finding given by the S.D.O. the trail court has proceeded with the suit and given a preliminary decree declaring the the share the parties as half and half. 8. The record show that this distribution of shares is not disputed so far as this party is concerned and the real issue is as to whether the land in suit reconstitutes abadi or land. In view of the serious legal defect pointed out in the order of the learned S.D.O., it must be set aside and the case remanded for a fresh decision on the point by the office who may now be holding the post of S.D.O. In case the finding is against the plaintiff the decree given by the learned trial court will have to be held as void and having been given that jurisdiction. 9. The revision application is, therefore, accordingly allowed and the finding of the learned S.D.O. dated 23-4-73 set aside. The case is remanded for fresh decision in the light of the above observations.