JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - This petition is directed against the Judgment dated 22nd September 1977 passed by the Board of Revenue and the Judgment dated 20.12.75 passed by Additional Commissioner and Judgment dated 4-10-1968 passed by Judicial Officer, Meerut. The facts of the case are that the petitioner filed suit under Section 209/229B of U.P.Z and L.R. Act alleging that he was sirdar of plots no. 1808, 1809, 1511 and 1512. He further alleged that the plots were let out by Nisar Beg the then Zamindur and some other plots were let out by Sharafat Ali the then Zamindar and in alternative petitioner claimed right under section 210 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. It was further alleged that incorrectly proceedings under Rule 115-C were started against him. 2. Respondents no. 4 and 5 namely State and Gaon Sabha contested the suit denying the right and title of petitioner alleging that the land had vested in State Government and Gaon Sabha. 3. The trial court dismissed the suit. Thereafter first appeal failed and the second appeal also failed by Judgment dated 22nd September, 1977. Against these Judgments the present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution has been filed. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for petitioner urged that the first appellate court has not considered oral and documentary evidence on record, hence findings of the first appellate court are perverse. Learned counsel for respondents no. 4 and 5 has argued that the Judgments are correct. No ground for interference has been made out. After considering arguments of learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that contentions raised by learned counsel for petitioner are correct. The documentary evidence has been referred to in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the petition. Paragraph 9 Specifies the statement of witnesses examined by the petitioner. True copies of the statement of P.W. 1 Sharafat Ali, P.W. 2 Nisar Beg, P.W. 3 Jamaluddin, P.W. 4 Mustafa Ali and P.W. 5 Ratan Lal have been filed as annexures 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively. The contents of paragraphs 6 and 7 of the writ petition have been admitted by the respondents. Similar description of different oral and documentary evidence given in detail under paragraphs 8 and 9 etc., have not been denied. The contents of paragraphs 6 and 7 of the writ petition have been admitted by the respondents. Similar description of different oral and documentary evidence given in detail under paragraphs 8 and 9 etc., have not been denied. Just a casual observation has been made that the contents of paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 are not correct. It has been stated that the lease in favour of the petitioner was fictitious. It is a fact that the Additional Commissioner who was final court of fact has not referred these oral and documentary evidence given in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the petition. It has been held in Smt. Sonawati and others v. Sri Ram and another, AIR 1968 Supreme Court 466 that in case documentary and oral evidence have been ignored by the first appellate court, which is the final court of fact in that event the conclusions and findings shall not be binding on the second appellate court. This view of the Supreme Court has been consistently followed by subsequent decisions of this Court. 5. From the perusal of the Judgment of the Additional Commissioner it becomes abundantly clear that he did not care even to discuss different documentary and oral evidence on record, rather in a cryptic Judgment he has referred the entries of 1362 fasli, 1367 fasli and 1373 fasli and thereby he has inferred every thing against the petitioner. Nothing has been said about the other evidence particularly about oral evidence. The learned Additional Commissioner appears to have shirked from the responsibility of deciding first appeal by applying his mind to the entire oral and documentary evidence on record hence his decision cannot be sustained. 6. In view of the discussions made above the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The Judgment dated 22nd September passed by Board of Revenue and dated 20th December 1975 passed by Additional Commissioner are quashed and the case is remanded back to Additional Commissioner to decide the appeal afresh on the basis of evidence on record and in view of the observations made above. There shall be no order as to cost.