JUDGMENT G.S. Tewari, Member - This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16-6-1975 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division in Appeals arising out of a suit under Section 209 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Buddhu had filed a suit under Section 209, U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in respect of plot no. 578 (area 1-00), alleging that the plaintiff was the sirdar of the land in dispute and had been in possession of it but as defendants no. 1 to 15 were held to be in possession thereof by the order of B.D.O. Roorkee dated 1-11-1971 in proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. the defendants on the basis of the said order had taken possession over the land and hence the suit for their ejectment. During the pendency of the suit Buddhu died and he was substituted by Hanif and others, respondents, by the court's order dated 13-5-1974. Out of the defendants, Ibrahim, Sahabbir, Mohammad All and Mahmood admitted the claim of the plaintiff's. The remaining defendants contested the suit denying the plaintiff's claim alleging that the land in suit was not being used for agricultural purposes and did not come under the definition of "land" and the present suit was not maintainable. The State of U.P. and Gaon Sabha did not contest the suit. 3. The trial court held that 0-14-O area of the disputed land had not been used for agricultural purposes and did not come within the definition of `land'. It ordered the ejectment of the defendants from 6-biswa area only. Consequently two appeals were filed before the Additional Commissioner, one by Haneef and others, plaintiffs, on the ground that defendants should be ejected from the entire land, and the other appeal was filed by Nisar and others, defendant appellant against their ejectment from six biswa area. The Additional Commissioner allowed the plaintiffs' appeal and decreed their suit for the ejectment of the defendants from the entire land. The appeal of defendants was dismissed. Consequently the defendants Nisar Ahmad and others have filed the present second appeal. 4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 5. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants are twofold. The appeal of defendants was dismissed. Consequently the defendants Nisar Ahmad and others have filed the present second appeal. 4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 5. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants are twofold. His first contention has been that once the land had been recorded as Abadi in the consolidation proceedings, then that entry shall be final and the revenue court could not go beyond that entry. Secondly, it was argued that the lower appellate court had not decided the point of limitation and the case as such should be remanded. 6. None of the above contentions has force. It is evident from the Record that consolidation ended in 1371 fasli. After consolidation in 1976-78 fasli Khatauni Budha was recorded as sirdar of the land in dispute prior to 1368 fasli and no where the land was recorded as Abadi. Therefore, the appellant's contention regarding consolidation entry of Abadi being final is not substantiated from record. It was for the first time in 1380 fasli that 14 biswa area was recorded as `Pathwara'. In this context it has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that defendants had trespassed over the land on the basis of the order dated 1-11-1971 proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and were using it as Pathwara. His contention has been that mere casual utilisation of land for such purposes by any person would not counter any title on him. This contention is also supported by 1972 A.W.R. 259 wherein it has been held that merely by proving user for miscellaneous purposes like tethering of cattle and keeping of Ghura etc., a person cannot acquire title by adverse possession. The trial court has held that the suit was within time in respect of six biswa land. It further held that remaining 14 biswa land was public land and should go to the Gaon Sabha, but the State of U.P. and the Gaon Sabha have not contested the plaintiffs claim. The defendants were held to be in possession in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., in 1971 where after the plaintiffs filed the suit in 1978 which was within time. Thus, the appellants contention regarding limitation is also of no avail to them. The defendants were held to be in possession in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., in 1971 where after the plaintiffs filed the suit in 1978 which was within time. Thus, the appellants contention regarding limitation is also of no avail to them. The lower appellate court has after proper appreciation of evidence and dealing with every aspect of the case rightly held that the plaintiff-respondents were sirdars of the entire land in dispute and the defendants had no title whatsoever. 7. In view of the above, the second appeal has got no force and is hereby dismissed.