JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - These five revisions have been referred by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra vide his order dated 27.11.1991 under Section 333-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. In the trial court five suits were filed under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 by the opposite parties that the Land Management allotted the land to them as Asami. The Gaon Sabha filed this suit under Section 202 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The suit of the Gaon Sabha was dismissed and it was held that they had acquired non-transferable bhumidhari rights, hence they are not liable to ejectment. The suit was contested by the State Government. The trial court decreed the suits vide its judgment and decree dated 30.4.1988 against which these five revisions have been filed by the State Government and Gaon Sabha before the Additional Commissioner. The learned Additional Commissioner has recommended that the revision should be accepted and the decree and judgmemnt of the trial court dated 30.4.1988 should be set aside and the cases should be remanded for trial afresh. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties perused the record. 4. The learned D.G.C.(R) argued that the opposite parties were asamis of the suit plots before the consolidation and they were so recorded during the consolidation. Therefore,. the suit is barred by Section 49 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holding Act and the finding recorded by the consolidation Courts cannot be changed in the subsequent suit by the revenue courts. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that the land was allotted as asami after the consolidation operation, hence there is no question of recording it to be asami during the consolidation in the name of the opposite-parties. The learned counsel also argued that the dispute plots were not in the nature of the land of public utility, hence they were not land under Section 132 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Therefore, under Section 197 the land for abadi could have been allotted only of the land mentioned under Section 132 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Therefore, the land could bot have been allotted as asmai but the allotment was done under Section 195 of U.P. Act no. Therefore, under Section 197 the land for abadi could have been allotted only of the land mentioned under Section 132 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Therefore, the land could bot have been allotted as asmai but the allotment was done under Section 195 of U.P. Act no. 1 of 1951, hence the allottees are non-transferable bhumidhari of the suit plots now and he relied the law point already referred in the trial court's judgment. 6. After perusal of the records and considering the arguments of both the learned counsels of the parties. I am of the opinion that the learned Additional Commissioner has not considered the exact nature of dispute. In his recommendation he has stated that Goan Sabha and State were although made party but there is no evidence that they were served with summon. The State Government has filed the written statement and have contested the suit. The summon of the Gaon Sabha is on the records and it was received by the Pradhan of the Village. He has also filed the revision along-with the State, hence the Additional Commissioner has given a wrong fact of the case. The learned counsel has also referred that date of cause of action has not been disclosed. But in the suit it has been disclosed and the date has been given when the cause of action arose. The learned Additional Commissioner has also stated that no issue were framed by the trial court but in the judgment itself shows that the trial court framed the issues and have decided the suit issue wise. 7. The learned Additional Commissioner has also held the opposite parties are recorded asami from 1374 fasli but they have not made any efforts to be recorded as a non-transferable bhumidhar during the consolidation. Whereas the pleadings of the opposite party was that the land was left during the consolidation operation and they were allotteed the land after consolidation operation. 8. The judgment of the proceeding under Section 202 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was filed. A perusal of the judgment shows that the finding recorded that the opposite party has acquired non-transferable bhumidhari rights. This finding was recorded on no evidence. Actually neither this fact was proved nor it was disproved by the parties, therefore, it was necessary to prove that fact in the present proceeding. Mere pleadings is sufficient. A perusal of the judgment shows that the finding recorded that the opposite party has acquired non-transferable bhumidhari rights. This finding was recorded on no evidence. Actually neither this fact was proved nor it was disproved by the parties, therefore, it was necessary to prove that fact in the present proceeding. Mere pleadings is sufficient. There should be specific evidence on the point of nature of land before the date of allotment. No evidence was filed and no finding has been recorded as to what was the nature of the land before the allotment. The Courts below have not also discussed that which has been left during the consolidation after carving out the chak will be a land for admission under Section 195 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 or under Section 197 of the Act. 9. No effect has also been made as to how much land these opposite party had at the time of the allotment. Lalloo and Kampal were allotted 7.69 acres of land. Whether they were allotted the land together or they were allotted the land jointly. Whatever the position may be the allotment has exceeded the limit of the area allotted as prescribed under Section 198 of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951. Therefore, declaration could not have been made about their rights. 10. During the suit under Section 202 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 it was pleaded that they belongs to Member of scheduled caste community. Neither this facts proved nor this fact was disproved. It is essential that on this point evidence should be given to determine the rights of the opposite parties if they claimed to be of that category. In these circumstances of the case there is no finding worth based on evidence that the land do not fall under the category of Section 132 of the Act. There is no evidence, hence no finding could have been referred on such meagre evidence. How ever the learned D.G.C.(R) agreed on the legal position that the land is under Section 132 then the allottees shall be deemed to be non-transferable bhumidhar, if the limit does not exceed. 11. There is no evidence, hence no finding could have been referred on such meagre evidence. How ever the learned D.G.C.(R) agreed on the legal position that the land is under Section 132 then the allottees shall be deemed to be non-transferable bhumidhar, if the limit does not exceed. 11. In these circumstances of the case I accept the references with a different direction that the trial court should follow the direction given in this order and not that of the Additional Commissioner in deciding the suit afresh, therefore the decree passed by the trial court are set aside and the cases are remanded to the trial court to decide afresh after taking evidence of the parties and framing issues also on the point as observed above. This order shall govern Revision Nos. 45 to 49 of 1991-91/Mathura.