JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 11-5-1976 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra in appeal no. 125 of 74-75. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs Yakub Ali and others filed a suit in respect of 4 plots area 4.60 acre alleging that they were in possession over the plots in dispute from before the abolition of zamindari that their names have not been recorded in the revenue record. The suit was contested by the State of U.P. stating that the plaintiffs were never in possession over the land in suit; that the suit was barred by Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act. The trial court by its order dated 1-3-75 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs holding that the suit barred by Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act. Aggrieved by that order of the trial court an appeal was preferred before the learned Additional Commissioner who also dismissed the appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the suit should be decided on the basis of compromise between Nagar Palika and plaintiffs ; that the view of the learned Additional Commissioner was wrong; that no compromise was entered into ; that the suit was barred by Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act, as the land was within the Urban area to which the provisions contained u/s. 49 of the C.H. Act were not applicable ; that the suit was not decided in accordance with the provisions contained U/o 23 Rule 3 of C.P.C. The learned counsel for the State submits that the compromise was not arrived at before the court and was not verified and hence it could not be taken into evidence. 5. I find that the compromise has been filed on 1-3-68 about which the learned Collector says that the then officer-in-charge was not authorised to enter into in such an agreement. I find that the order of the trial court is no order in the eye of law. The trial court has not at all framed any issue about the compromise and decided the case contrary to it. I find that the order of the trial court is no order in the eye of law. The trial court has not at all framed any issue about the compromise and decided the case contrary to it. In view of the above the second appeal is allowed, the order of the courts below are set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial court for decision afresh keeping in view the provisions contained in paras 23 to 26 of Revenue Court Manual regarding issues and the provisions contained in para 34 and 35 of the Revenue Court Mannal.