Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE appellant feeling aggrieved with the judgment and orders dated 8.11.1982 and 9.8.1983 has preferred this appeal. Counsel for the appellant has pressed this second appeal on the substantial question of law that abadi land, which was recorded in the first settlement shall be deemed to have settled with the appellant under Section of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act (for short the 'Act').
(3.) THE facts, in brief, are that a Suit for permanent injunction was filed by the appellant (since deceased) against the Gram Sabha and two private parties. The Suit was dismissed, against which an appeal was filed. In the appeal the partial claim of the appellant was admitted and the temple (Shivala), which was constructed by the ancestors of the appellant was held to belong to the appellant. But so far bheeta, and tank, which were existing on the spot no finding has been recorded and it has only been observed that the appellant will continue to use that as it was being used by him. Hence this appeal.;