JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - The reference has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra dated 27-3-1991 in Revision No. 18 of 1990-91. The learned Additional Commissioner has passed that order against the order of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, district Mathura dated 19-2-91 passed in suit No. 70 of 1990-91 Prakash Chandra v. Brajlal in a proceeding under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. The issues were framed. Issue No. 12 was regarding whether the suit land is a land within definition of Section 331-A of the Act ?. The trial court gave finding that the disputed plots are land within the meaning of Section 331-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Against that finding a revision was filed before the Additional Commissioner who has dismissed this revision, hence this revision under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. The disputed plots are recorded in the name of Brajlal son of Muli Ram and Shyam Swaroop son of Chhedalal as bhumidhars in khatauni 1390 to 1395 fasli of Village Keshopur Mathurpur, Pergana Tahsil & District Mathura Resident of these cultivators is also shown of the same village but in the plaint Shyam Swarup son of Chhedalal is shown resident of Hathras Nayaganj and Brajlal son of Muliram is shown resident of village Satoha Asrarpur, Pergana and District Mathura. These defendants have been served through publication in the trial court. In the revision when the summon was issued the report of Tahsil has come that no person Brajlal son of Muliram residing in Village Satoha and the notice of Shyam Swarup has not been returned. The frame of the suit is the defective. The plaintiff ought to have been shown the resident of the recorded tenure-holder as shown in the khatauni and if there was any change of place of resident of those persons it should have been specifically mentioned in the plaint. However the trial court ought to have sent the summon at both the village i.e., the village in which these defendants are recorded tenure holders and the village in which the plaintiff claimed that they reside. However the trial court ought to have sent the summon at both the village i.e., the village in which these defendants are recorded tenure holders and the village in which the plaintiff claimed that they reside. However it appears that there is some collusiveness and the court ought to have taken proper precaution regarding the service of the summon on the parties. This also increases the litigation in the revenue courts that when a person appears on the substituted service the trial court is bound to set aside the order and to initiate fresh proceeding and take further litigation go on thus waste the time of the courts. 5. In these circumstances of the case I set aside the impugned order of the trial court and direct the trial court to properly serve the notice on recorded tenure-holders as discussed above, then to decide it afresh in accordance with law.