JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. Heard Sri R.K. Srivastava, for the petitioner and Sri P.V. Chaudhary, for respondents-3 to 6, Standing Counsel, for State of U.P.. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Deputy Collector, dated 04.12.2013 and Commissioner dated 23.09.2015, passed in suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. Rajdei and others (respondents-3 to 6) filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 160 of 2004) under Section 229-B of the Act, for declaring them as bhumidhar with transferable right of plots 141 (area 0.439 hectare) and 227 (area 0.346 hectare) of village Pipari Saidpur, tahsil Tanda, district Faizabad. In the plaint, it has been stated that Smt. Karma widow of Ram Abhilash was bhumidhar of the land in dispute. Rajdei (plaintiff-1) purchased plot 141 (area 0.439 hectare) from Smt. Karma through sale deed dated 17.06.1986. Ram Parikshit and others (plaintiffs-2 to 4) purchased plot 227 (area 0.346 hectare) from Smt. Karma through sale deed dated 09.09.1986 and their names were mutated in annual register on the basis of the sale deeds. However, by committing forgery an amaldaramad has been made of the alleged order of Consolidation Officer dated 14.08.1971, directing to record the name of Ram Bahadur (the petitioner). The plaintiffs filed an application for deleting forged entry, in which Sub-Divisional Officer, by his order dated 04.08.2000 dismissed the application, holding that remedy of the plaintiffs was to file a suit under Section 229-B of the Act. 4. The petitioner contested the suit and filed his written statement on 13.09.2013 stating therein that his name was rightly recorded by the order of Consolidation Officer dated 14.08.1971. Alleged sale deeds dated 17.06.1986 and 09.09.1986 were fabricated documents and he had already filed a suit for cancellation of these sale deed before Civil Court, which was pending. The petitioner also filed an application dated 25.09.2013 for dismissing the suit as not maintainable for want of 60 days prior notice to State of U.P. under Section 80 C.P.C. and to Gaon Sabha under Section 106 of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. This application was contested by the respondents on the ground that notices as required under Section 80 C.P.C. were send to State of U.P. and under Section 106 of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, to Gaon Sabha. This application was contested by the respondents on the ground that notices as required under Section 80 C.P.C. were send to State of U.P. and under Section 106 of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, to Gaon Sabha. Due to urgency, they had obtained leave of Deputy Collector under Section 80 (2) C.P.C. for institution of the suit, before expiry of 60 days, which has been granted by the Court. 5. On the application of petitioner, Issue No. 1 was framed by Deputy Collector in respect of maintainability of the suit. Deputy Collector, after hearing the parties, by order dated 04.12.2013 held that as leave to file suit before expiry of period of 60 days from notice has been granted as such the suit is maintainable. On these findings, the application of the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 658). The revision was heard by Commissioner, who by his order dated 23.09.2015 affirmed the aforesaid findings and dismissed the revision. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. There is no dispute that notices as required under Section 80 C.P.C. were not sent to State of U.P. and under Section 106 of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, to Gaon Sabha. Only dispute was that before expiry of 60 days from sending notices, the suit was filed. The respondents filed an application for grant of leave to institute the suit before expiry of period of 60 days, from the date of notice on which leave was granted by trial court on 11.06.2004. The only arguments of the counsel for the petitioner is that although under Section 80 (2) C.P.C., leave can be granted to institute the suit, before expiry of 60 days from the date of notice but there is no such provision under U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, to grant leave for institution the suit before exipry of period of 60 days from the date of notice. In the plaint, Gram Sabha was impleaded as defendant-2. Thus the suit was not maintainable, before expiry of 60 days from notice. 7. The counsel for the respondents submits that Section 106 of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 is confined to suits instituted against the Gaon Sabha or its members and officials for acts done in their official capacity under the Act. Thus the suit was not maintainable, before expiry of 60 days from notice. 7. The counsel for the respondents submits that Section 106 of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 is confined to suits instituted against the Gaon Sabha or its members and officials for acts done in their official capacity under the Act. In the present case, suit has been filed by the respondents for declaring them as bhumidhar with transferable right of the land in dispute against the petitioner. Thus rigour of Section 106 is not applicable in this suit. He relied upon judgment of this Court in Sheo Pujan Vs. Gram Sabha, 1964 R.D. 157 and Raj Bahadur Vs. Addl. Commissioner, 2005 (99) RD 553 . He further submits that plea in this respect is available to Gram Sabha alone as held by this Court in Gaja Vs. Dasa Koeri, AIR 1964 All 471 and Tahsin Khan Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., 2010 (109) RD 671. A perusal of the plaint of this suit (Annexure-3) shows that declaratory relief has been sough against the petitioner alone. The petitioner, in his written statement, also claimed himself alone to be bhumidhar with transferable right of the land in dispute. Gaon Sabha was impleaded as defendant in the suit as required U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Thus aforesaid case law are fully applicable in this case also. Impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality. 8. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.