JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member. - This is a second appeal under Section (sic) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act against the judgment and decree dated 1-7-1983 of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, reversing the judgment and decree dated 23-2-1983 of S.D.O. Garhmukteshwar in a suit under Section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act whereby the suit of the plaintiff-opposite party was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that Sarvasri Pershadi Singh & others brought a suit under Section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act against the defendant Kanhaiya Singh the defendant amongst other pleas took the defence that the land has been in his possession for more than 30 years and he has been using it as his abadi and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable in the revenue court but it should have been filed before the Civil court. The learned S.D.O. accepted the defence case and held that the land is being used as abadi and that the revenue court has no jurisdiction in this suit, hence he dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned Additional Commissioner reversed the finding of the trial court and held that no separate declaration under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act had been obtained, hence the finding of the S.D.O. in the present suit would not operate as declaration as envisaged under Section 143 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 and, therefore, he held that the revenue court has jurisdiction and, therefore, remanded the case to the trial court to proceed with it according to law. Feeling aggrieved against this order this appeal has been preferred by the defendant. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Prescribed the record. 4. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiffs have themselves admitted in evidence that the land is being used as abadi hence the finding of the Additional Commissioner is wrong and perverse and that the suit is cognisable only by the Civil Court. 5. Prescribed the record. 4. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiffs have themselves admitted in evidence that the land is being used as abadi hence the finding of the Additional Commissioner is wrong and perverse and that the suit is cognisable only by the Civil Court. 5. As against this argument the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff placed reliance on a ruling reported in 1971 R.D. page 160 Allauddin alias Makki v. Hamid Khan in which the Hon'ble High Court has held that a decision on an issue under Section 331-A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act does not operate as a declaration as required under Section 143 of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 and, therefore the suit would remain cognisable by the revenue court so long as the entry of bhumidhari is continued to be recorded irrespective of the fact whether the land is being used for any purpose other than agriculture, horticulture etc. 6. I have carefully gone through the aforesaid ruling and I find that the said ruling is fully applicable to the instant case. In my opinion the mere finding of an issue in accordance with the provisions of Section 331-A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is not sufficient and a separate declaration has to be obtained under Section 143 of the said Act, and the entry have to be got corrected before the plea can be accepted by the revenue court that the suit about the land is not cognisable by it. So long as the entry of bhumidhar exists, in the papers the suit pertaining to such land shall remain cognisable by the revenue court itself and it cannot be entertained by a Civil Court. In a case for the ejectment of the trespasser it is the recorded bhumidhar who has to seek declaration under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and the trespasser has no right to challenge the nature of the land because he has no title on such land. In case the trespasser is unable to perfect his title under Section 210 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act he has to be ejected in a suit under Section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and whereof he perfect his title by adverse possession then in that case too the suit can be dismissed on merits by the revenue court. Only after such dismissal of the suit of course and the declaration of the trespasser under Section 210 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act the latter may seek the declaration under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act but before that stage no option is open to him and he cannot take the plea that the suit should be filed before the Civil Court. 7. In view of such matter I find no illegality in the order of the Additional Commissioner. The learned S.D.O. was obviously wrong in holding the suit to be beyond jurisdiction, hence this finding was rightly reversed by the learned Additional Commissioner. In the result this appeal fails hence dismissed and the order of the learned Additional Commissioner is upheld, Let the record be sent back to the trial court to decide the suit afresh in accordance with the directions contained in the judgement of the learned Additional Commissioner.