Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Triveni Shanker, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) Though the case has been taken up in the revised list no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents.
(3.) The facts are that respondent No. 4 Gaon Sabha filed .' suit under section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R Act impleading the petitioner and respondent Nos. 6 to 10 as defendants in respect of the land in dispute. Tire suit was contested by the petitioner and other defendants. The Trial Court vide judgment dated 15.3.1975 decreed the suit. Aggrieved the petitioner and other defendants filed an appeal. The Additional Commissioner vide judgment dated 29.12.1975 set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 15.3.1975 and remanded the case back to decide the same afresh after giving an opportunity to the parties to lead fresh evidence. After remand the Trial Court appointed Advocate Commissioner to make spot inspection who submitted his report dated 17.5.1976. The Advocate Commissioner in his report excluded the residential house of the petitioner and other defendants from the disputed land. After the aforesaid report was submitted by the Advocate Commissioner, the Gaon Sabha entered into a compromise with the petitioner and other defendants admitting the fact that house of the petitioner and other defendants stood on the disputed land. An application dated 6.8.1976 to the said effect was moved before the Court. However, subsequently the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha got the said compromise application dismissed as not pressed. The petitioner realizing the mistake that pleadings with regard to his house standing on the land in dispute has not been mentioned in the written statement filed an amendment application seeking to amend the written statement by adding the fact that his house is standing over the disputed land for more than twelve years and further that the land in dispute does not come within the definition of land as such the suit was not maintainable.;