JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, J.M. - The facts are: On 9.7.1974 Pooran Singh institutes a declaratory law suit under Section 229-B Z.A. and L.R. Act in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sambhal Moradabad. The pleading has set forth the contention that his father Lochan Singh was Zamindar who held the land in his personal cultivation. The entry as 'Talab' is erroneous; indeed no tank there ever was at the spot. Also it was out of consolidation. A proceeding for his eviction was begun under Section 122-B Z.A. and L.R. Act but had to be stayed as a question of bona fide right of claim was sticking. The relief to declare him bhumidhar tenant in possession is prayed for. 2. On 14.1.1985 a written statement on behalf of Gaon Sabha is filed. The claim is that land vests in Gaon Sabha and plaintiff is not even Asami thereof. Notice under Section 80 C.P.C. is defective. The relief to dismiss the suit is prayed for. No issues were framed. Parties are given chance to lead their evidence. On 26.4.85 Asstt. Collector, First Class enters an order dismissing the suit. Aggrieved, Pooran Singh lodges an appeal in Commissioner's. On 9.6.1987 an order is entered dismissing the appeal. Hence the second appeal by plaintiff Pooran Singh. 3. Heard the counsel for and against the appeal. 4. The claim of plaintiff Pooran Singh rests on the ground that his father was Zamindar who had held the land under his cultivation. Khatauni 1356-F records: Lochan Singh, father. But in the new dawn heralded by advent of consolidation, it is idle to intone old litianies. All rights, title and interest stand sed off by reason of fresh determination in new settlement; consolidation. All past possession, legal or adverse, all claim, borne out by this document or that is nullified in to because of the decision of the disputes relating to title and delivery of possession to new allottees. The contention of counsel for appellant is that land was 'Talab' and out of consolidation. There is no material to hold that land was out of consolidation; there has been change of plot numbers and decision of title as is evidenced by 'Fard Mutabiqat' filed by appellant Pooran Singh. The name of Pooran Singh or his father was not in record at all at the onset of consolidation. The cause of action had arisen to file objection then and there. The name of Pooran Singh or his father was not in record at all at the onset of consolidation. The cause of action had arisen to file objection then and there. If he did not, now and here he cannot be heard. The bar of Section 49, C.H. Act stands. The counsel for appellant contends that entry of 'Talab' in Khatoni is impeached here. But there is no tangible evidence to hold that the entry is erroneous. Talab is a land of public utility and under Section 132 Z.A. and L.R. Act no tenurial rights can accrue. A land which has been ear-marked in consolidation, Section 29-C C.H. Act bars any other user of such land. Act 35 of 1976 has come into force on 15.6.1976. Section 15 has brought a chance in Section 210 Z.A. and L.R. Act. So by adverse possession over Gaon Sabha property for over 12 years or more, no tenurial rights will come to perfection. Even a trespasser from July 1, 1952 is unable to acquire rights in land vesting in Gaon Sabha. This is fully in elucidation in 1990 (1) CRC 165 H.C. 1984 AWC 561 , 1989 AWC 398 . The name of Pooran Singh is not in records. Can he derive title through his father's possession? O' you who are trespassers, take this: no table is to govern succession to land taken by aggression. The son begins afresh as trespasser though period of two trespasser can be interwined in case of Jural relationship to show duration thereof, only when limitation bars a remedy, against a tenure-holder. But such is not a case here. 5. Learned counsel for appellant calls to attention resolution of L.M.C. acknowledging tenancy right of Lochan Singh in land. L.M.C. has no power to while away the land vesting in Gaon Sabha by a resolution dated 10.9.1965. Rule 110-A (2) Z.A. and L.R. Rules bars L.M.C. from admitting a claim in any suit or proceeding without obtaining prior permission of S.D.O. or Tahsildar, not being the presiding Officer of the court. L.M.C. cannot do this. The resolution comes to little. 6. Counsel for appellant contends on the basis of 1977 A.W.C. 683 H.C. that absence of issues vitiates entire proceeding. L.M.C. cannot do this. The resolution comes to little. 6. Counsel for appellant contends on the basis of 1977 A.W.C. 683 H.C. that absence of issues vitiates entire proceeding. Here is mediated" "parties are expected to be vigilant and must see that proper issues are framed in the case but primarily it is the duty of the court and the court cannot be absolved of its responsibility merely because a party has been negligent. Even in an undefended case it is the duty of a court to frame proper issues with a view to inform' the plaintiff what he has to establish before a decree can be claimed." Here the consequence of omission to frame an issue is not considered. 1964 R.D. 199 H.C. rules that "omission to frame an issue does not have the effect of rendering a new trial or the remitting of an issue necessary, if no prejudice has been caused to the parties by the said omission." In the case in hand, Pooran Singh is not prejudiced in any way whatsoever by omission to frame necessary issues. AIR 1964 SC 169 can be assimilated here: where parties know the issues and are aware of the case in all its aspects and have led evidence, the non framing of issues is immaterial. So this contention ends in despair to appellant Pooran Singh. 7. There is one further fatal defect in suit. The copy of mandatory notice under Section 80 C.P.C. is not filed and proven to show that original thereof was sent and served on Collector or received in his office. In the absence of copy, it is not possible to evaluate whether it fulfils all just requirements of a valid notice. The mere filing of receipt of postal registration is not enough. What notice was sent? What was actually received? What the contents of notice are? It is fair to infer that mandatory notice was not sent and served in terms of Section 80 C.P.C. Things being so, the suit deserves dismissal: 1978 AWC (Rev.) 37, 1980 AWC 457. AIR 1963 SC 424 is clear that notice issued and served but in terms of Section 80 C.P.C. the result is to dismiss the suit. Suits claiming relief against State and Gaon Sabha in the backdrop of determination of title in consolidation, do not raise any substantial question of law. 8. AIR 1963 SC 424 is clear that notice issued and served but in terms of Section 80 C.P.C. the result is to dismiss the suit. Suits claiming relief against State and Gaon Sabha in the backdrop of determination of title in consolidation, do not raise any substantial question of law. 8. The second appeal has no force; is dismissed accordingly.