JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - These are three second appeals file by the Town Area Loni, district Ghaziabad against the judgment and decree of the Additional commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated May 11, 1982 through which the appeals filed against the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Class, district Ghaziabad dated November 30, 1981 were dismissed. 2. The facts of this case in brief are that the Town Area brought a suit under Section 209 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act for the ejectment of defendants Nathoo Ram and two others alleging that the land belongs to the town area. The suit was contested by the defendants on the allegation that they had constructed pucca houses on the land in dispute and that they had been using it as Abadi from prior to Zamindari Abolition and as such the revenue court has not jurisdiction to deal and entertain this suit. The trial court framed several issues including issue No. 2 which is related to the jurisdiction of the court. The trial court decided the issue in favour of the defendants and held that the revenue court had no jurisdiction to decide the suit, hence the land was Abadi and the jurisdiction vested in the Civil Court. Appeal filed against the judgment and decree were also dismissed, hence these second appeals. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 4. A copy of the Khatauni is on record in which the disputed plot is recorded as Gohra which means a tank. There is no doubt that a tank is connected with agriculture purpose, hence it is land within the meaning of Section 3(14) of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent could not show me that any declaration under Section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act has been obtained by the defendant. There is no doubt that a tank is connected with agriculture purpose, hence it is land within the meaning of Section 3(14) of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent could not show me that any declaration under Section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act has been obtained by the defendant. The record also does not contain any document which could prove that any such declaration has been granted by the S.D.O. As a matter of fact if the trial court had come to the conclusion that the land was Abadi and that the revenue court had no jurisdiction to try the suit should have referred the issues to the S.D.O. under Section 331 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act and should have decided the suit on the basis of the finding received from the S.D.O. such procedure was not adopted by the trial court, hence it acted illegally in dismissing the suit on its own accord without reference the issue to the S.D.O. The finding recorded by the trial court and the judgment based thereon as well as the decree are, therefore, liable to be set aside. The learned Additional commissioner failed to examine the propriety of the judgment and decree of the trial court in the right perspective, hence his judgment is also to be set aside. 6. In view of the above discussion these appeals are allowed and the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial court to proceed with it according to law. 7. This order shall govern S.A. No. 277 and 278 of 1982-1982, Ghaziabad.