JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member - This is a reference made by the learned Additional Commissioner by his judgment dated 15-4-1978 recommending that the order dated 25-8-1977 of the trial court be set aside. 2. Heard the learned counsels and perused the file. 3. The facts of the case are that one Raj Deo (Revisionist-plaintiff) filed a suit under Section 229-B of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act against Rama Shanker Gaon Sabha and State for a declaration as grove-holder along with defendant Rama Shanker. State has filed the written statement on 6-11-1969, the parties produced their evidence. Report dated 28-12-1969 by the Vakil-Commissioner has also been filed. After that the suit was decided on merit by S.D.O. 14-4-1972. 4. On 10-10-1975 an application has been filed by Sabhapati of the Gaon Sabha with a prayer that the order dated 14-4-1972 be set aside as the Gaon Sabha had no knowledge about the suit and decree. The trial court allowed this restoration application on 25-8-1977 holding that the notice on Gaon Sabha was through affixation by pasting at the door of the Sabhapati. The witnesses of pasting include one of the parties in the suit, hence the notice was not served properly and adequate care was not taken ; therefore, he allowed the application and set aside the order dated 14-4-1972. The learned Additional Commissioner while making the recommendation observed that the State and Gaon Sabha both are represented by the D. G. C. and it cannot be said that the decree was not in the knowledge of the D. G. C. the application filed on 10-10-1975 is beyond time. As the State contested the suit it cannot be said that it was decreed against State and Gaon Sabha without hearing them. 5. In this case there are two main points to be considered. Firstly, whether the D. G. C. represents both Gaon Sabha and State. Secondly whether the order dated 14-4-72 in the suit contested by the State can be set aside on the ground that Gaon Sabha did not contest the same. There cannot be two opinions that D.G.C. (R) represents both State and Gaon Sabha and thus he is an agent of both the parties and the notice given to D. G. C. will mean that notice to State and Gaon Sabha have been given. There cannot be two opinions that D.G.C. (R) represents both State and Gaon Sabha and thus he is an agent of both the parties and the notice given to D. G. C. will mean that notice to State and Gaon Sabha have been given. Under the provisions of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act (hereinafter called Act I of 1951) the class of intermediary i.e., Zamindar's etc. has been abolished ; that class has not been substituted by any other class or juristic person. In other words it cannot be said that State or Gaon Sabha has come in the place of the then zamindar's. The State became the owner of the land which was not in the holding of any other farmer of the village and that has been transferred to Gaon Sabha for looking after and making arrangement of such land. Thus Gaon Sabha derives its rights from the State. If the State has contested the suit and the Gaon Sabha did not put in appearance, it cannot be said that the order was passed behind the back of Gaon Sabha. Gaon Sabha was represented through the D. G. C. Moreover the State, the main organ, was represented and Gaon Sabha derived its rights through State, hence it cannot be in different or better position than that of State. It is clear that the interest of Gaon Sabha cannot be said to be over-looked by the court or even by the D. G. G. The Gaon Sabha is an elected body and the Sabhapati is elected periodically. Thus there is party politics involved in this institution. The tenants should not be made prey to the party politics of the institution. It is quite possible that the matter settled in the tenure of one Sabhapati may be re-agitated by the succeeding Sabhapati belonging to other party or group. Whereas State is a permanent body its position is far better than that of Gaon Sabha. It will be gross injustice if the suit contested by the main organ is considered to be ex parte against sub-ordinate institution and the decree be set aside on such ground. It will make the position of the tenure-holder insecure and it will be just a torture on him. 6. It will be gross injustice if the suit contested by the main organ is considered to be ex parte against sub-ordinate institution and the decree be set aside on such ground. It will make the position of the tenure-holder insecure and it will be just a torture on him. 6. From the aforesaid discussion it is clear that neither on the basis of provision of law nor on the basis of equity and justice it can be said that the suit contested by State has been decided behind the back of Gaon Sabha which derived rights through State. Thus both the points have been answered. The D. G. C. (R) represents both Gaon Sabha and State. So far as the other point is concerned it is held that the judgment in suit contested by the State, and then decided, cannot be set aside on the ground that the Gaon Sabha did not contest the suit. 7. I, therefore, accept the reference of the learned Additional Commissioner, allow the revision and set aside the judgment of the trial court dated 25-8-1977. Costs easy.