JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This appeal has been filed under Section 331(4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the judgment and decree dated 18.7.80 passed by learned Commissioner, Kumaun Division, Nainital. The learned Commissioner passed that judgment and decree against the judgment and decree dated 27.10.75 of Sub-Divisional Officer/Assistant Collector, Haldwani, Nainital in a suit under Section 209 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. Prem Singh filed this suit under Section 209 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Nainital on 13.7.75 that defendants-respondents have constructed a wall on plot Nos. 298, 299 and 300 area 30-6-0 over which he has recorded as Asami, hence this wall should be demolished and the defendant-respondents should be ejected and possession should be delivered to him. The suit was contested and one of the plea of the defendants-respondents was that the dispute land is in the Municipal Area Haldwani, hence this suit is not maintainable. They have also taken the plea that the suit is not maintainable otherwise on legal grounds. State Government also written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff-appellant. The trial court dismissed the suit on 27.10.1975 on the ground that the Z.A. and L.R. Act are not enforced where the suit plot situate. Against this decree and judgment appeal was filed. The learned Commissioner has also dismissed this appeal on that ground Z.A. and L.R. Act has not been enforced in the area where the suit plot lies, hence this second appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. Khatauni extracts 1380 fasli to 1382 fasli was filed with the plaint of the suit. In this Khatauni the tenure-holders are recorded as bhumidhars. If there is no enforcement of the Z.A. and L.R. Act in the area how the entries recorded and the classification of the tenure-holder is shown as bhumidhar. None of the court has given any cogent reasons on this fact. They have also not given any reason why this kind of records was prepared by the Collector under Land Revenue Act. Hence the finding recorded by both the courts below is not tenable. 5. The next main question in this appel is whether the suit is maintainable? None of the court has given any cogent reasons on this fact. They have also not given any reason why this kind of records was prepared by the Collector under Land Revenue Act. Hence the finding recorded by both the courts below is not tenable. 5. The next main question in this appel is whether the suit is maintainable? In the plaint it is alleged that defendants-respondents has constructed a wall in the dispute plot it should be removed and possession should be delivered. This is purely civil nature of dispute. No action is possible under Section 209 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 to demolish a wall. In these circumstances of the case suit of the plaintiff-appellant is not maintainable under Section 209 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 6. The plaintiff-appellant has shown himself to be Asami of the suit plot. He has not impleaded the tenure-holder, therefore, the suit is also defective on this ground. After considering all the facts and circumstances in this second appeal I am of the opinion that the suit is not maintainable, therefore this second appeal is also fails and hereby it is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case parties shall bear their own costs.