JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This recommendation has been made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, vide his order dated August 22, 1986 for setting aside the trial court's order and decree dated 5-11-86. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act I of 1951 was filed against Gaon Sabha by plaintiff, Niranjan Prasald Sharma, for a declaration of his bhumidhari title in respect of plot nos. 368 (area 0-6-0), 389 (area 1-0-0) and 313 (1-0-0). The trial court held that the plaintiff-opposite party was not the bhumidhar of the land in dispute but he had title in respect of well and trees standing on the land. Aggrieved by that order, the State of U.P. and Gaon Sabha filed a revision before the learned Additional Commissioner who held that the revenue court had no jurisdiction to give a declaration regarding title in respect of well and trees standing on Gaon Sabha land. The learned Additional Commissioner is of the view that this order of the trial court suffers from illegality and should be set aside. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 4. The learned District Government Counsel (Revenue) 'submits that the trial court has exceeded its jurisdiction in declaring the plaintiff-opposite party Niranjan Prasad Sharma to be title-holder in respect of well and trees standing on the land belonging to Gaon Sabha and ordering him to pay Rs. 20/- as annual rent. The learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the well and trees were to be deemed as settled with opposite party in view of the provisions contained in Section 9 of U.P. Act I of 1931. The learned counsel for the opposite party draws my attention to a decision reported in Suraj Din v. Gaon Sabha, 1978 RD p. 29 in which it was held that 'the opposite party-revisionist shall not be ejected from the tree or area covered by the tree.' Relying on "Lalta Singh v. Patiraj Singh & others, 1983 ALJ p. 473 the learned counsel submits that plaintiff-opposite party in the instant case was the owner of the trees. Also relying on "Tilakdhari Singh v. Durga Prasad Singh, 1967 RD p. 270 he says that trees and well will be deemed to have been settled with the plaintiff-opposite party. 5. Also relying on "Tilakdhari Singh v. Durga Prasad Singh, 1967 RD p. 270 he says that trees and well will be deemed to have been settled with the plaintiff-opposite party. 5. The learned District Government Counsel (Revenue), in reply, submits that declaration in respect of trees and well is not within the competence of revenue Court but it is within the jurisdiction of civil court. He also submits that the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite party relate to a proceeding under Section 122-A and none of these decisions bears relevance to a suit under Section 229-B. He also submits that trees and well do not exist on abadi land and as such they would not be deemed to have been settled with the opposite party. 6. I find that a suit under Section 229-B was filed by Niranjan Prasad Sharma against Gaon Sabha. While deciding the suit the trial court dismissed the claim of the opposite party so far as his title ever the land in dispute was concerned, but it upheld his claim that he was the rightful owner of trees and well and ordered that Rs. 20/- shall be paid as annual rent in lieu of this title over trees and well. So far as the question of Section 9 of the Act is concerned, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party. Section 9 of U.P. Act I of 1951 reads as under :- "3. All wells, trees in abadi and all buildings situate within the limits of an estate belonging to or held by an intermediary or tenant or other person whether residing in the village or not, shall continue to belong to or be held by such intermediary tenant or person, as the case may be, and the site of the wells or the buildings within the area appurtenant thereto shall be deemed to be settled with him by the State Government on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed." From the above it is evident that only private wells and trees in abadi and buildings are to be settled with the existing owners or occupiers thereof. But here the well and trees are standing on some land which in not abadi. But here the well and trees are standing on some land which in not abadi. This finds support from the extracts of revenue records available on file, which show that, the plots are recorded as 'usar' and 'purani parti' and not as abadi. Therefore, the provisions contained in Section 9 of the Act will have no bearing in respect to the title of the opposite party. In view of this, the decision reported in 1967 R.D. 278 is not applicable to the instant case. The decision reported in 1983 ALJ 473 relates to trees standing on land forming part of bhumidhari holding. In the instant case, the land belonged to Gaon Sabha and it was not a bhumidhari holding of anybody, and as such this decision also would not apply. 7. The learned D.G.C. (R) draws my attention to a Larger Bench decision of this court reported in "Tribhuwan Dutt Singh v. Gaon Sabha, 1985 AWR (Revenue) p. 11 and says that in view of this decision of the Larger Bench, the trees and well standing on the land of Gaon Sabha will not belong to a person claiming to the owner thereof. 8. In view of the above discussion, I find that the claim of the opposite party is not sustainable in the eye of law. As such the reference made by the learned Additional Commissioner is accepted, the revision is allowed and the order and decree of the trial court dated 5-11-85 is set aside.