JUDGMENT Jitendra Prasad, Member - This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated May 10, 1985 passed by the learned Addl. Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra in appeal No. 25 of 1983-84. 2. Briefly stated that fact of case are the plaintiffs, Smt. Chuttu and others filed a suit under Section 229-B of Z.A. and L.R. Act against the Hawaldar and others on the ground that the land in suit was of Mst. Saidan; that she had no male issue and the plaintiffs are their daughters. The plaintiffs therefore, prayed that their names may be recorded over the land in suit. The Opposite parties filed their objection of April 21, 1982 with the allegations that they are not daughters of Ms. Sidan; that she had executed a will in favour of the opposite paries on February 12, 1977 and such the are the bhumidhar of the land in suit. The learned trial court after going through the evidence on record and after hearing the paries decree the suit of the trial court an appeal was preferred before the learned Additional Commissioner, who by his order date May 10, 1985 allowed he appeal had been preferred. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has augured that the learned Additional Commissioner has erred in holding that plaintiff has filed to prove that he notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C. was served upon the Collector ; and as such the finding of the learned Additional Commissioner is apparently against the evidence on record; that the learned Additional Commissioner has wrongly allowed the appeal without considering the merit of the appeal without considering the merit of the case; that no objection regarding the service of notice was filed on behalf of the respondents and as such in the absence of such defence the order of learned Additional Commissioner in liable to be quashed. In support of his contention he cited rulings reported in 1974 R.D. 370 and 1976 R.D. 240. In support of his contention he cited rulings reported in 1974 R.D. 370 and 1976 R.D. 240. In reply the learned counsel for the opposite parties has argued that no notice under section 80, C.P.C. was served upon the Collector which is mandatory and such the learned Additional Commissioner has committed no illegality in allowed in the appeal was nor claimed, could not be decided by the trial court and as such the learned Additional Commissioner has rightly allowed the appeal and, therefore, his order is liable to be confirmed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file carefully. I find that in the instant proceedings no notice under Section 80 C.P.C. was served upon the state as such the whole proceedings are vitiated under the law. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the notice was served upon the Collector but he had failed to produce any evidence in support of his contention. I, therefore, do not find any force in the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant. The rulings cited by him are also not applicable to the fact and circumstance of the case. As such I find that the learned Additional Commissioner has committed on illegality in allowing the appeal. 5. In view of the above, the instant second appeal has got no force which is hereby dismissed.