JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This revision has been referred by the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur vide his recommendation dated 27-3-1987 under Section 333-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. In brief the facts of this case are that a proceeding under Section 178 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 was filed in the trial court i.e., in he court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gorakhpur. The trial court passed the order on 30-9-1992 that State Govt. is impleaded as party under Sections 176/229-B of the Act. Let the plaint be amended accordingly. Revision was filed against that order which has been recommended by the Additional Commissioner that the State Government cannot be impleaded as party in a proceeding under Section 176 of the Act. The Additional Commissioner also directed the parties to appear in this court on 20-7-1987. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist. No one is present from the side of the opposite-party. Perused the record. 4. A suit No. 176 can be converted under Section 176/229-B of U.P. Act no. 1 of 1951. There is no illegality in the order of he trial court. A perusal of the record also shows. That large number of documents are filed regarding the orders of the prescribed authorities and appellate authorities in Agricultural Holding Ceiling Act. In these circumstances of the case here appears that there may be interest of the State Government in this partition suit. 5. In these circumstances of the case I do not accept the reference and it is accordingly rejected and the order of the trial court impleading the State Government as party is perfectly legal in the circumstances of the case.