JUDGMENT : R.S. SINGH, J. 1. This is the Plaintiff's second appeal against the decree and judgment dated 9-5-1973 of the Second Civil Judge, Meerut at Ghaziabad, reversing the decree of the trial court, by which the Plaintiff's suit was decreed. 2. The suit was filed by the Plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from interfering in the possession of Plaintiff and Defendant No. 3 over the Gher in suit and also restraining them from fractioning the Gher in suit to any body. It was alleged in the plaint that the land in suit was allotted by Land Management Committee in favour of Plaintiff and Defendant No. 3 on 13-5-1962. The Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 3 constructed Kothas over there and a boundary wall, which fell down in rains and Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 3 are using the land in suit as their Gher. It has been alleged that the Pradhan, due to enmity, moved an application to the Court of Tehsildar on 5-10-1964 for re-auction of the disputed land. Tehsildar submitted his wrong report to S.D.M. on 2-3-1965 for re-auction of the disputed land and S.D.M. also wrongly accepted his report on 3-3-65 against the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 3 and now the Pradhan is prepared to re-auction the land in dispute, without any right. A notice u/s 80 CPC was given to U.P. State, which was served on 27-12-1966, but still Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are not to resist from re-auctioning the disputed land. Hence the present suit. 3. The suit was contested by the Defendants on the grounds that the suit is barred by Section 80 CPC They alleged that the Plaintiff did not raise construction over the land within two years as required by law and hence the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for re-auctioning the land in suit is legal. They also alleged that the suit is barred u/s 106 Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as Act). 4. The suit was decreed by the learned Munsif for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from interfering in the possession of the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 3 over the Gher in suit and also restraining them from reauctioning the Gher in suit. The Defendants preferred an appeal against the decree and judgment of the trial court, which was allowed. 1 and 2 from interfering in the possession of the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 3 over the Gher in suit and also restraining them from reauctioning the Gher in suit. The Defendants preferred an appeal against the decree and judgment of the trial court, which was allowed. The lower appellate court allowed the appeal and dismissed the Plaintiff's suit on the finding that it is not proved that the building was raised on the land within 2 years from the date of allotment and further for want of notice u/s 106 of the Act. 5. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the finding of the lower appellate court that the suit is barred by Section 106 of the Act as no notice was given to the Gaon Sabha two months prior to the filing of the suit, is erroneous in law. In support of his contention he relied upon Sheo Pujan v. Gram Sabha 1964 AWR 58. 6. It has been contended by the learned' counsel for the Respondents that the Plaintiff was aggrieved by the action of the Gaon Sabha as Pradhan was going to re-auction the land in suit. Therefore, notice u/s 106 of the Act was necessary. 7. The relevant portion of Section 106 of the Act runs as follows: * * * 8. A bare perusal of this section makes it clear that a notice u/s 106 of the Act is necessary only in a case where anything has been done in official capacity by the Gaon Sabha under this Act, meaning thereby under the Panchayat Raj Act. It is nobody's case that any action has been taken by the Gaon Sabha in this case under any of the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act. Rather the Pradhan was taking steps to re-auction under the provisions of UP ZA and LR Act. Therefore, Section 106 of the Act is not relevant in this case at all. Gaon Sabha is a necessary party under number of sections of the UP ZA and LR Act. If a suit is filed under any of the provisions of the UP ZA and LR Act, where the Gaon Sabha is a necessary party notice u/s 106 of the Act is not necessary. Gaon Sabha is a necessary party under number of sections of the UP ZA and LR Act. If a suit is filed under any of the provisions of the UP ZA and LR Act, where the Gaon Sabha is a necessary party notice u/s 106 of the Act is not necessary. In 1964 AWR 58 (supra) it has been also held as follows: Where in a suit for declaration and injunction the Gaon Sabha was impleaded incidentally as a Defendant because of the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act held that no notice u/s 106 was necessary as Section 106 is confined to suits instituted against the Gaon Sabha or its members or officers for acts done in their official capacity under the Act itself. Section 106 of the Act is confined only for any act done on behalf of the Gaon Sabha under the provisions of the Act whereas, Section 80 CPC where notice is given to the State, is in general terms. In any suit, where the Government is a party, notice u/s 80 CPC is necessary. But it is not so in a case of Gaon Sabha. In a case of Gaon Sabha, it is not necessary to give a notice u/s 106 of the Act, wherever the Gaon Sabha is made a party. But notice u/s 106 of the Act is necessary only in a case where any act has been done on behalf of the Gaon Sabha under the Act and not on behalf of any other. Therefore, in my opinion, notice u/s 106 of the Act was not necessary in this case and the suit is not barred by Section 106 of the Act. The finding of the lower appellate court on this point is erroneous and cannot be sustained in law. 9. The next question for consideration in this case is whether after the allotment of the land in suit, Plaintiff had constructed any house within a period of two years from the date of allotment. The finding of the lower appellate court on this point is erroneous and cannot be sustained in law. 9. The next question for consideration in this case is whether after the allotment of the land in suit, Plaintiff had constructed any house within a period of two years from the date of allotment. At relevant time, Rule 115-P. of the UP ZA and LR Rules was applicable, which runs as follows: The person to whom an abadi site is allotted shall be required to build a house, either kachcha or puce, and begin to reside in it or use it for the purpose for which it was built within two years from the date of allotment, if he fails to do so, his rights shall be extinguished and the site may be re-auctioned. This rule lays down that if a person is allotted an abadi site, he will be required to build a house and begin to reside in it for the purpose for which it was built within two years from the date of allotment and in case he fails to do so, his rights shall be extinguished and the site may be re-auctioned. The lower appellate court -has considered the fact whether any house was constructed within 2 years or not. The lower appellate court, after consideration of the material evidence on record, came to the conclusion that no building was raised by the Plaintiff on the land in suit within two years of the allotment. The finding recorded by the lower appellate court is based on consideration of material evidence on record, which has not been successfully challenged by the learned Counsel for the Appellant to be perverse or without any basis of evidence on the record. Therefore, in view of the fact that no house was constructed by the Plaintiff within the period of two years of the allotment, Plaintiffs right in the land in suit extinguished immediately on expiry of the period and the Gaon Sabha is fully justified in making re-auction. 10. In view of what has been discussed above, I find no force in this appeal and the order of the lower appellate court, by which, the Plaintiff's suit has been dismissed is correct. 11. In the result, the appeal fails, which is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.