JUDGMENT Shabihul Hasnain, J. Heard Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for the State as well as Sri Yogendra Nath Yadav for the Gaon Sabha. 2. For the kind of the order which is likely to be passed, the notices to private opposite parties are dispensed with at this stage. 3. Petitioner has challenged order dated 28.5.2016 passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial). The petitioner has also challenged order dated 6.4.2016 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bilgram, Hardoi by which the amendment application of the petitioner in the suit has been dismissed. Both these are orders as contained in Annexure No.s 1 and 2 to the petition respectively. 4. The facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed a suit under Section 229-B/209 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act referable to Village -Kekdi, Pargana Saandi, Tehsil-Bilgram, District Hardoi. The suit was filed on 28.4.2014 in which although notices have been issued and appearance has been put in but neither issues have been framed nor written statement has been filed. Petitioner has moved an application for amendment on 23.2.2016. By this amendment the petitioenr has sought to introduce an alternative argument in the suit. The suit had been filed on the strength of Section 164 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. He has been claiming right and title over the land on the strength of the agreement made between the parties. 5. By way of amendment he has tried to take alternative plea that since more than 12 years have passed without any challenge to the possession hence he is entitled to get relief and the suit be decreed on the basis of adverse possession also. 6. The amendment application has been rejected by Sub Divisional Magistrate as well as Additional Commissioner on the ground that two stands are contradictory and they will change the nature of the suit. The petitioner has argued that this is not the case. He is fully well within his rights to take alternative plea in the suit. In his support the petitioner has referred to the case of Praful Manohar Rele Vs. Smt. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and others, 2014 (32) LCD 269 in which their Lordships in paragraph 17 have observed as follows: - "17. Reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in J.J. Lal Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. In his support the petitioner has referred to the case of Praful Manohar Rele Vs. Smt. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and others, 2014 (32) LCD 269 in which their Lordships in paragraph 17 have observed as follows: - "17. Reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in J.J. Lal Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. M. R. Murali and Anr., (2002) 3 SCC 98 where this Court formulated the following tests for determining whether the alternative plea raised by the plaintiff was permissible: "To sum up the gist of holding in Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar's case; If the facts stated and pleading raised in the written statement, though by way of defence to the case of the plaintiff, are such which could have entitled the plaintiff to a relief in the alternative, the plaintiff may rely on such pleading of the defendant and claim an alternate decree based thereon subject to four conditions being satisfied, viz.(i) the statement of case by defendant in his written statement amounts to an express admission of the facts entitling the plaintiff to an alternative relief, (ii) in granting such relief the defendant is not taken by surprise, (iii) no injustice can possibly result to the defendant, and (iv) though the plaintiff would have been entitled to the same relief in a separate suit the interest of justice demand the plaintiff not being driven to the need of filing another suit." 7. Accordingly, this Court feels that the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate as well as Additional Commissioner are not correct as per the law of the land. The order dated 28.5.2016 passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial) and well as order dated 6.4.2016 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bilgram, Hardoi are hereby set aside. 8. The mater is remanded back to the Sub Divisional Magistrate-respondent No.2 to decide the amendment application of the petitioner once again in the light of the observations of this court as well as the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, expeditiously. 9. It is made clear that opportunity of hearing shall be given to both the parties there before deciding the amendment application. 10. With these observations and directions the petition stands disposed of.