JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This reference has been recommended by the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur vide his recommendation dated 30.10.1989. 2. In brief the fact of the case are that a proceeding against Kauloo for ejectment was started in the Court of Tahsildar/Assistant Collector. Kauloo pleaded that he is landless agriculture labourer belonging to scheduled caste. His possession on the dispute plot was since 1975, hence he has acquired the Bhumidhari right. The Tehsildar dropped that proceeding on 3.8.1979. No amaldaramad was made. Then Kauloo filed the suit No.315 of 1981. That suit was contested by the State Government. The Pradahn of village stated on oath that Kauloo is in possession. The suit was decreed by the S.D.O. Phoolpur on 7.3.1981. When there was change in the village for Pradhanship. The subsequent Pradhan filed restoration on 8.1.1985 with the plea that the Gaon Sabha has no knowledge of the suit. The then S.D.O. set aside the decree on 26.5.1986. Against which the revisionist has filed revision before the Additional Commissioner, who has recommended that the revision should be allowed and the order of the restoration dated 26.5.1986 should be set aside. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist. The decree which was passed wan not an ex-partey decree. The Pradhan of the village has given statement on oath in favour of the revisionist. He had appeared in the Proceeding. The decree was passed against the State Government. Hence the finding recorded by the S.D.O. is perverse. If there is change in the office of Pradhan cannot deny the act done by the previous Pradhan. He will be bound by the act done by the previous Pradhan. He will be bound by the act done by the previous Pradhan. I therefore, accept the reference of the Additional Commissioner dated 30.1.1989 and set aside the restoration order dated 26.5.1986 passed by the S.D.O.