JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, M. - This is a second appeal against the judgment of Additional Commissioner dated February 8, 1984 quashing the judgment of the trial court dated August 20, 1979 and decreeing the suit of Manehdra Singh and Ram Charan Singh, respondents 1 and 2 respectively. 2. Heard the learned counsels and perused the file. 3. The facts of the case are that suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was filed on December 9, 1975 by Ram Nandan (Father of Mahendra and Durga) against State Government and Gaon Sabha. Later on forest department was also permitted to file written statement. They have denied the title of the plaintiff. 4. The plaintiff claimed over plot No. 602 min. Area 15 Bigha. The whole area of plot No. 602 is 485 Bigha. From the Khatauni of 1383 Fasli it is clear that 466 Bigha 19 Biswa and 9 Biswansi of plot No. 602 min. is recorded in the name of forest department. Thus it is clear that about 18 Bigha 11 Biswani of plot No. 602 is not the property of Van Vibhag. The learned counsel for the appellant Sir D. Nath, D.G.C. (R.) has stated that he is concerned only with the property of forest department i.e. plot No. 602 min. 466-19-9 and the learned counsel for the respondent Sri N.N. Singh has stated that his client does not want to get right over any portion of aforesaid area of the forest department but they want that they should be declared Bhumidhar of 15 Bigha which is outside the property of forest department. Hence the matter has become very easy and clear. 5. The trial court has held by deciding issue No. 1 and additional issues 1 and 3 that the property does not belong to Gaon Sabha but the property belongs to Van Vibhag. Here from the aforesaid statements of the learned counsels it is clear that declaration is not sought within some portion of forest department which is 466-19-9 in area but over the land which is left after that in plot No. 602, hence his judgment cannot be upheld. So far as the judgment of Additional Commissioner is concerned he has held that the report of Vakil Commissioner shall be the part of judgment but in my opinion this observation is uncalled for and incorrect. So far as the judgment of Additional Commissioner is concerned he has held that the report of Vakil Commissioner shall be the part of judgment but in my opinion this observation is uncalled for and incorrect. It cannot be a part of the judgment under any provision of law, hence this observation is deleted. 6. The rights of the plaintiff over the land in suit has been established by the documentary evidence and the oral evidence adduced by him. I agree with the reasoning given by the Additional Commissioner in his judgment. In the village concerned U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was enforced on July 1, 1954 (i.e. 1362 Fasli). The plaintiff is recorded as occupant in 1357 Fasli (which shall be equivalent to 1356 Fasli) in the case of the normal enforcement of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. He is also recorded in possession in Khasra of 1352 Fasli, 1362 Fasli and 1372 Fasli. P.W. 1 Ramroop and P.W. 2 Mangroo have stated that the land in dispute is in possession of plaintiffs since long. The defence witnesses produced are Amir Singh Lekhpal and Prasidha Narain Singh and they have not specifically stated about the cultivation of the land. Hence on the aforesaid reasons the plaintiff acquired Sirdari rights and later on Bhumidhar rights over the land in dispute. 7. There is no doubt that no one can acquire right in the area of reserved forest but in this suit as stated by the learned counsel of plaintiff respondent, his client did not claim any right over the area of the reserved forest which is 466-19-9 of plot No. 602 min., of the forest department but they claimed right over the remaining portion of the land of plot No. 602. Hence the plaintiff-respondents Mahendra Singh and Durga Prasad are declared Bhumidhars in possession over 15 Bighas of plot No. 602 min. (Without prejudice to right of any other persons) and the area of reserved forest 466-19-9 will remain intact. 8. With these observation the second appeal is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.