JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - The State of U.P. has filed this appeal under Sec. 331 (4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the decree and judgment of Sri W.M. Singh, Addl. Commissioner, Bareilly Division dated 28.6.1978 reversing the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Suar district Rampur dated 3.11.1976 passed in case under Sec. 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 in R-1 respect of land situated in village Kesho Nagli Tahsil Suar, District Rampur. 2. The main ground of the appeal is that the original tenure-holder was declared absconder and the Sub-Divisional Officer on 24.10.1964 recorded the disputed plot as property of the Gaon Sabha, therefore, no right and title over this property can be acquired by adverse possession in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in 1979 R.D. Page 226, therefore, he recommended that the decree and judgment of the trial court be set aside and that of the Sub-Divisional Officer should be restored. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Latkan Singh filed a suit against Lauki Ram, Ram Pal, Daya Lal, Gaon Sabha Kesho Nagli and State of U.P. that he has acquired sirdari right on the basis of adverse possession from 15 years over plot no. 266/6 area 3.50 and 266/5 area 63 of village Keso Nagli Tahsil Suar, District Rampur. 4. The suit was contested by the State with the pleading that after the absconding of the recorded tenure-holder t he land has been vested in the State. No sirdari right can be perfected over the suit plots. He also alleged that the suit was barred by Sec. 49 of U.P.C.H. Act. 5. The learned trial court after taking the evidence dismissed the suit vide its judgment dated 30.11.1976 6. An appeal was filed against that decree and order. The first appellate court reversed the finding of the trial court and decreed the suit on the basis of adverse possession. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the record. No one is present on behalf of the respondent inspite of sufficient service. 8. The learned Addl. Commissioner held that the plaintiffs-respondents were in possession from 15 years hence they have perfected their rights and title over the disputed plots. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the record. No one is present on behalf of the respondent inspite of sufficient service. 8. The learned Addl. Commissioner held that the plaintiffs-respondents were in possession from 15 years hence they have perfected their rights and title over the disputed plots. Since the possession was never come before the enforcement of the Z.A. and L.R. Act, hence in view of the law point laid down by the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad in 1979 R.D. page 226 when the property vested in the State no sirdari right no row bhumidhari right can be acquired on the basis of adverse possession, therefore the learned Addl. Commissioner committed illegality in decreeing the suit. 9. I, therefore, set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court dated 28.6.1978 and restore the judgment and decree of the trial court.