Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.— Heard Dr. V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Siraj Ahmad Khan for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and perused the record. 2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgments and orders dated 16.5.2013 and 31.5.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faizabad in Civil Appeal No.193 of 2012 upholding the judgment dated 23.11.2012 and decree dated 11.12.2012 passed by the Civil Judge, Haveli, (Junior Division), Faizabad in Regular Suit No. 362 of 2003 (Om Prakash and another v. Daya Ram & another). 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate that the Tehsildar, Tehsil Beekapur, District Faizabad had dismissed the suit filed under Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act relating to Plot Nos. 192 and 193 and have committed gross error in recording that the judgment of the Tehsildar does not show the plot number and area. 4. Submission is that under Rule 115-C of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, it is the duty of the Lekhpal to report illegal occupation of any Gaon Sabha land along with plot number and area to the Tehsildar at least twice in a year. 5. It is also submitted that once the proceedings under Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act have been rejected the matter has become final and both the courts below have committed error in drawing presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act against the plaintiffs/appellants.. 6. In the judgment and order dated 23.11.2012 passed in Regular Suit No. 362 of 2003 the learned Court below has recorded its findings that the plaintiffs/appellants have failed to establish their rights over the land in question. It has been observed that the document filed by the plaintiffs in this regard was not proved. 7. There is nothing on record to indicate that the concerning S.D.M. had passed any order granting patta in favour of father of the plaintiffs, although it is necessary to have the order of the S.D.M. in this regard. The document relied by the plaintiffs is only the proposal of the Pradhan and on that basis the plaintiffs cannot claim right and title over the land in question. 8. The document relied by the plaintiffs is only the proposal of the Pradhan and on that basis the plaintiffs cannot claim right and title over the land in question. 8. The learned Courts below have also recorded in its findings that the order passed by the Tehsildar in Case No.349 of 2001 (Gram Sabha v. Ram Sajivan) under Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act does not indicate the plot number and area whereas the appellants-plaintiffs claims the land registered at Plot No. 192/193, it cannot be ascertained from the order of the Tehsildar that the land claimed by the appellants/plaintiffs is one and the same. 9. There are concurrent findings of the trial court as well as the first appellate Court on the above points. 10. learned counsel for the appellants failed to satisfy the Court about his right of title over the land in question. 11. I am of the view that no substantial questions of law are involved in the present appeal. The judgment of the Courts below are just and proper and do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 12. The appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed at the admission stage. _____________