JUDGMENT U.C. Srivastava, J. - The order of remand passed by the Board of Revenue in Second Appeal is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 2. It appears that the petitioners who were ex-intermediary was held to be Bhumidhar of the land in dispute during consolidation operations. Plea of the opposite party No. 5 who was claiming Sirdari rights failed. As a result of which a suit filed under Section 202 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for ejectment of the said opposite party was filed by the petitioner. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The first appeal filed by the opposite party No. 5 was dismissed by the appellate Court holding that it was no longer open for him to take the plea of Sirdari rights. Which plea was barred under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The appellate Court rightly held so. Thereafter opposite party No. 5 filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue remanding the case to the Assistant Collector on the ground that the opposite party No. 5 took a plea that over a portion of the land in dispute he had constructed a house and as such that part had become Abadi but no-one has decided as to the existent (sic) of area covered by the Abadi in view of Section 331-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and an issue should have been framed. Section 331-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act so far as it is relevant, reads as follows: - "331-A. Procedure then plea of land being used for agricultural purposes is raised in any suit : (1) If in any suit, relating to land held by a bhumidhar, instituted in any Court, the question arises or is raised whether the land in question is or is not used for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry, which includes pisciculture and poultry farming, and a declaration has not been made in respect of such land under Section 143 or 144, the Court shall frame an issue on the question and send the record to the Assistant Collector incharge of the sub-division for the derision of that sub-division." 3. Here in this case after the decision of the case by the Consolidation authorities a suit under Section 202 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was filed. It was not the case of the opposite party No. 5 that the entire land has changed its nature even if a portion of the land is covered by abadi that will continue to be Bhumidhar and will not change its nature. Merely because there is some abadi over a portion of land that could not be taken to mean that the entire land has changed its nature and Section 331-A will apply. The Revenue Authorities have fell in error in misinterpreting and misapplying Section 331-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Hand Reforms Act, to the facts of the case. It is for the Board of Revenue to decide the case on merits and to make necessary safeguards regarding abadi area, if in fact, it exists. The order passed by the Board of Revenue is manifestly erroneous. As such the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 4. The writ petitions is allowed. The order passed by the Board of Revenue dated February 26, 1981 a copy of which has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure No. 4 is quashed. The Board of Revenue is directed to restore back the Second Appeal to its original number and hear and decide the same in accordance with law. As no appearance has been put in by the opposite party, there will be no order as to the costs.