JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—Heard Sri D.S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 10.7.1998 passed by the Revenue Officer in a Suit under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as also the appellate order dated 21.4.2007 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, in Appeal No. 24 of 1997-98 filed under Section 331(3) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders have illegally directed the petitioners to approach the Civil Court for the rights claimed by them in the suit and that suit is not maintainable under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Section 229B of the Act to state that when a declaration is sought relating to agricultural land the suit would be maintainable under Section 229B of the Act and further that there is a bar under the Act of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court with respect to agricultural land involved in the present proceedings. 5. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record the plaint has been filed as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. The prayer made in the plaint is quoted hereunder : “;g fd /kks"k.kk bl izdkj ls dh tk;s fd oknhx.k eq0 jsuqdk ekSjJh o vfuy dqekj ds LFkku ij oDQukek ds vuqlkj fookfnr Hkw0la0 59@009] 377@1&59 ls ljojkdkj gS rFkk izfroknhx.k 1 o 2 d uke /kksf"kr djds dkV fn;s tkrs rFkk oknhx.k ds uke xzkei=ksa es vafdr djk fn;s tkosA” 6. A perusal of the plaint indicates that the petitioner in a suit under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act has sought a declaration that he be declared to be Sarvakar of Thakurji Maharaj Kookamai after deletion of Renuka Maurya and Sri Anil Kumar. The claim is on the basis of a waqfnama and hence the entries made in the revenue records in favour of those persons be cancelled and the petitioners name be recorded. 7. The claim is on the basis of a waqfnama and hence the entries made in the revenue records in favour of those persons be cancelled and the petitioners name be recorded. 7. The Trial Court as also the Appellate Court while considering the plaint found that the petitioner is claiming declaration to be a Sarvakar of the property of Thakurji Maharaj Kookamai and there is no declaration sought with respect to the title of the agricultural land inasmuch as the claim is that the petitioners have become Sarvakar by virtue of waqfnama after Renuka Maurya and Sri Anil Kumar. It, therefore, held that the declaration sought by the petitioners is to be declared as Sarvakar of Thakurji Maharaj Kookamai and not as owner exclusively of the agricultural land in question. The Appellate Court has agreed with the findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and found that the relief of declaration as Sarvakar claimed by the petitioner by virtue of the deed can only be adjudicated before the Civil Court and not in a suit under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that a suit with respect to agricultural land is barred before the Civil Court under the Act. The aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is perfectly correct but only if a declaration of title for agricultural land is sought. 9. This is not a case where although Sri Thakurji Maharaj Kookamai is alleged to be owner of the agricultural land, the petitioners are claiming any declaration against Thakurji Maharaj Kookamai. What the petitioners are seeking is that in place of Renuka Maurya and Sri Anil Kumar they be declared as Sarvakar of Thakurji Maharaj Kookamai. Consequently, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is not borne out from the record and is misplaced. 10. For the aforesaid reasons the impugned orders do not require any interference. The writ petition has no merits and it is, accordingly, dismissed. 11. No order is passed as to costs. —————