JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, Member - This is defendant's second appeal against the judgments and decree 7.10.1987 passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi in appeal No. 92/603/102 of 1981-82 arising out of the judgment dated 11.1.1982 passed by the Asstt. Collector 1st Class Karwi in a suit No. 62/94/u/Sec. 229-B/209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Ram Deo filed a suit u/Sec. 229-8/209 of the Act with the contention that he has been in cultivatory possession of the land in dispute and was its bhumidhar The allegations are that the defendant Indrapal's name was fictitiously recorded in the revenue papers. Contesting the suit, the State claimed that the land in dispute was the property of the Gaon Sabha. The defendant Indrapal contested the suit alleging that the plaintiff was not the Bhumidhar nor was tie in possession nor was he resident of the village Kankota. His case is that the original tenant of the land in dispute were Ram Deo and Mangalwa sons of Darshanwa who left the village 40-45 years back and their where abouts were not known. The plaintiff is neither Ramdeo nor Manglawa. The defendant was declared sirdar of the plot in dispute in 1366-F under C.L.R.D. Scheme and since then he has been continuing in possession. 3. On the pleadings of the parties the learned trial court framed six issues and dismissed the suit on 11.1.1982 on the ground that the plaintiff Ram Deo never lived in the village nor paid rent nor was he in possession. The learned trial court disbelieved the plaintiff's witnesses. Its observation regarding the co-tenant Mangalwa is that he lives in Fatehpur. He has not appeared in the witnesses box nor has he ever cultivated the land. The learned trial court has further observed that in the Khatauni 1366-69-F, both Ram Deo and Mangalwa were reported 'Farap'. Their names do not find place in the kutumb register or electoral roll. The learned trial court believed that the defendant's name was recorded under the C.L.R.D. Scheme by the S.D.O. 4. The learned Addl. Commissioner did not agree with the findings of the learned trial court. According to him, co-plaintiff Mangalwa lives in the village and Ram Deo, though he lives in Allahabad, frequently visits the village Kankota where he has his house. The learned Addl. Commissioner did not agree with the findings of the learned trial court. According to him, co-plaintiff Mangalwa lives in the village and Ram Deo, though he lives in Allahabad, frequently visits the village Kankota where he has his house. As regards the entries made under the C.L.R.D. Scheme, his findings are that no right can accrue to the defendant on the basis of an order which is not clear nor signed and dated. His further observation is that the entries made in favour of the defendant are not according to the Land Records Manual. He disbelieved the Khasra entries on the ground that they were not issued from the record-room and were prepared by the Lekhpal for the purpose of 'peshbandi'. He has further observed that the appellant Indrapal's brother Drigpal is the Lekhpal who manipulated to obtain the entries. He has disbelieved the defence witness Manni Lal on the ground that he appeared in the witness box under the influence of the pradhan who allotted 4 bighas land to him. The defendant appellant Indrapal who is the Pradhan of the village also influenced DW-2 Devi Dayal by allotting 10 bighas land. He has also not placed by credence to the rent receipts dubbing them as fictitious. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Sri Vikram Nath, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the plaintiff abandoned the land 40-45 years back and the land in dispute was allotted to the defendant under the C.L.R.D. Scheme under the orders of the S.D.O. in 1366-F. Assailing the findings of the learned Addl. Commissioner, the learned counsel has contended that the court below has not upset the findings of the learned trial court and met the points raised by it and wrongly shifted the burden on the defendant whereas the plaintiff is required to stand upon his own legs. He has further contended that the learned court below has not given any finding on possession. 6. Sri R.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that Drigpal, brother of the defendant appellant Indrapal is the Lekhpal and has been instrumental in getting the fictitious entries under the alleged C.L.R.D. Scheme etc. made. He has further contended that the learned court below has not given any finding on possession. 6. Sri R.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that Drigpal, brother of the defendant appellant Indrapal is the Lekhpal and has been instrumental in getting the fictitious entries under the alleged C.L.R.D. Scheme etc. made. His second contention is that the procedure laid down under Section 186 of the Act has not been followed and that the plaintiff being the minor lived with his sister and brother-in-law in the village Lohkata. His third contention is that the defendant's name is not entered in column 5 of the Khasra but in the remarks column whereas the qabiz entry in always made in column 5. His last contention is that the papers filed before the first appellate court were not proved. 7. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced before me and have also perused the records. The learned Addl. Commissioner has reserved the findings of the learned trial court after meeting each and every point raised by it. He has given a finding of fact which is not to be disturbed in this second appeal. As regards the abandonment, I find sufficient force in the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent. Section 186 of the Act deals with abandonment. It provides that -- "(1) Where a bhumidhar with non-transferable rights (other than a minor, lunatic or idiot.) or asami has not used his' holding for a purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandary which includes pisciculture, arid poultry farming for two consecutive agricultural year, the Tehsildar may, on the application of the Gaon Sabha or the landholder or on facts coming to his notice otherwise, issue a notice to such bhumidhar with non-transferable rights or asami, as the case may be, to show cause why the holding be mot treated as abandoned. (2) The application shall contain such particulars as be prescribed. (3) If the Tehsildar finds that the application has been duly made he shall cause to be served on the bhumidhar with non-transferable rights or the asami or publish in the manner prescribed a notice in the form to be prescribed requiring him to appear and show cause on a date to be fixed why the holding be not held as abandoned. (4) If the bhumidhar with non-transferable rights or the asami does not appear in answer to the notice, or appears but does not contest it, the Tehsildar shall declare the holding as abandoned and thereupon, except as provided in Section 172, the holding shall be deemed to be vacant land. Provided that no declaration under this sub-section shall be made in respect of a holding or any part thereof, if the same has been mortgaged by the bhumidhar with non-transferable rights under sub-section (2) of Section 153 and the mortgage has not been fully redeemed, in which case the Tehsildar shall move the Collector tor the realization of the loan in such manner as may be prescribed. (5) If the bhumidhar with non-transferable right or asami appears to contest the notice, the Tehsildar shall drop the proceedings." It is evident from the above provisions that where a bhumidhar with non-transferable rights (other than a minor, lunatic or idiot) or asami has not used his holding or a purpose connected with agriculture horticulture or animal husbandry which includes pisciculture and poultry farming for two consecutive years the Tehsildar may, on the application of the Gaon Sabha or the landholder or on facts coming to his notice otherwise, issue a notice to such bhumidhar with non-transferable rights or asami to show cause why the holding be not treated as abandoned. There is nothing on the record to show that such declaration has been made. As regards the entries made under the C.L.R.D. Scheme the entries are not authentic. It is neither signed nor dated nor any reference of the case has been given. No right can accrue to the defendant appellant on the basis of these entries. 8. In the result, I find no substantial question involved in this second appeal. The appeal, therefore, fails and is consequently dismissed.