JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a second appeal against the judgment of Shri Banwari Lal, Addl. Commissioner, Faizabad Division, dated August 1, 1975, reversing the order of Revenue Officer, Akbarpur, District Faizabad, dated September 6, 1971 in a case under Section 202, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The appellants had filed the suit under Section 202, seeking the ejectment of the respondents 1 to 6 from grove No. 248 situated in village Bandipur. The trial court has decreed the suit. The Addl. Commissioner has, however, set aside the judgment of the trial court and rejected the plaint on the technical ground of non-joinder of a necessary party i.e. the Gaon Sabha. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Gaon Sabha is not a necessary party in a case under Section 202, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and that the learned Addl. Commissioner has erred in law in setting aside the judgment of the trial court on this technical ground. 5. I would uphold the above contentions. The Gaon Sabha is a necessary party only in those cases where this has been specially so provided. Thus the Gaon Sabha has been specially mentioned as a necessary party in a declatory suit under Section 229 of the Act. On the other hand Section 202 provides for an ejectment of an Asami from his holding on the suit of the Gaon Sabha or the land holder as the case may be. Where the suit has been filed by the Gaon Sabha, the Gaon Sabha obviously is a necessary party. Where however a suit under this section has been filed by the land holder, the Gaon Sabha is not a necessary party. The learned Addl. Commissioner has referred to the decision in Sundar Lal v. Ram Prakash, 1973 R.D. 296 in which a learned Member, has held that in proceedings under Section 202 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The Gaon Sabha is a necessary party. This decision was not marked 'W.R' by the learned Member and as the Gaon Sabha had already been impleaded in that case, this question was not discussed at all. The learned Member appears to have made an off hand observation. The Gaon Sabha is a necessary party. This decision was not marked 'W.R' by the learned Member and as the Gaon Sabha had already been impleaded in that case, this question was not discussed at all. The learned Member appears to have made an off hand observation. However a careful reading of Section 202 would make it clear that the Gaon Sabha is a necessary party only when the suit has been filed by the Gaon Sabha but it is not a necessary party when it has been filed by a land holder. 6. The learned Addl. Commissioner has erred in law in setting aside the order of the trial court without hearing the appeal on merits. I hereby allow the second appeal and set aside the order of the learned Addl. Commissioner. He shall now hear and decide the first appeal on merits is accordance with law.