JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a second appeal under Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated May 9, 1985 through which the appeal filed by Beni Singh was partly allowed and the decree passed by the Asstt. Collector 1st Class, Bulandshahar dated January 9, 1985 was partly upheld. 2. The facts of this case in brief are that defendant No. 1 Beni Singh was sole tenant of plot No. 859. He executed three sale deeds of different areas in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 Lilawati. By one sale deed he transferred 12 Biswas land in favour of the appellant Persadi. Through another sale deed he transferred 11 Biswas of land in favour of plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 Kunwar Pal and Ranvir Singh. The third sale deed was executed in favour of Smt. Leelawati and he transferred 15 Biswas of land. Mutation was effected in favour of the transferees on the basis of the sale deeds having been executed by Beni Singh. Now Kunwar Pal, Ranvir Singh and Persari brought a suit under Section 176 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 for the partition of their share. Smt. Leelawati did not contest the suit but Beni Singh filed his written statement and disputed plaintiff's claim alleging the sale deed to be void under Section 168-A of the Act No. 1 of 1951. The trial court rejected the defence version and decreed the suit. Beni Singh went up in appeal before the Additional Commissioner. The learned lower appellate court dismissed the appeal so far, as it concerned plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 Kunwar Pal, Vir Singh and the defendant Leelawati upholding the finding of the trial court on the ground that these transfers were legal because the land of the transferees was contiguous to that of plot No. 879. As regards Persadi, however it was held that he had failed that his land was contiguous due (sic) that of the plot No. 879 and, respect of Persadi's share was set aside. Now Persadi has come up before this court against the said order of the Additional Commissioner. 3. Respondents are absent. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the record. 4. Now Persadi has come up before this court against the said order of the Additional Commissioner. 3. Respondents are absent. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the sale deed executed in favour of Persadi is valid because his land is contiguous with plot No. 869. 5. A Sajra is on record, on a perusal of which it appears that Persadi was Bhumidhar of plot No. 864 but this plot is not adjacent to plot No. 869 because of a drain having Khasra; number No. 865 which separates both of them. The learned counsel contended that the presence of this drain would not disturb the contiguous because according to world dictionary the word contemplate means "next in order" and, therefore, plot No. 864 should be deemed to be contiguous with plot No. 869. 6. There is no question of disputing the correctness of the meaning of the word contiguous as mentioned in the aforesaid dictionary but his meaning itself indicates that the plot number of Persadi should have been next in order to the plot in which share was purchased by him. I am afraid that plot No. 864 cannot be said to be next in order to plot No. 869 because of the intervention made by the drain. This drain as observed above has a separate number namely 865 and, therefore, plot No. 864 and 869 cannot be said to be next in order because they stand separate by the drain. In such circumstances the finding of the Additional Commissioner that no plot of Persadi was contiguous with plot No. 869 is absolutely correct and does not deserved any interference. 7. In such circumstances I find no force in this appeal and dismiss the same. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Collector to start proceeding under Section 168-A against Beni Singh and the transferee Persadi accordingly.