DEOKI NANDAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for an injunction restraining the defendants State of Uttar Pradesh and Gaon Sabha of village Landhaura in District Saharanpur from demolishing the eastern and the southern wall of a Gher or taking the land of the Gher into possession on the basis of an order dated 6th March, 1967 of the Sub -Divisional Officer, Deoband. The trial Court decreed the suit on the findings, that the plaintiff was the owner in possession of the land in suit and there was no evidence to show that he had encroached on any land or had damaged any kharanja belonging to the Gaon Sabha. The lower appellate Court, however, dismissed the suit on the finding that the Civil Court had no juris ­diction to sit on appeal over the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer inasmuch as it was not established that the Sub -Divisional Officer had in any way exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the order.
(2.) MR . K. B. L. Gaur, Learned counsel for the plaintiff -appellant contended before me that the Sub -Divis ional Officer's jurisdiction in the matter like the present one across under Section 122 -B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and that under sub -section (4) of that section the order is made final subject to the result of a suit by the aggrieved party before a Court of competent jurisdiction. The land in suit was not agricultural land nor claimed to be held for any agricultural purpose. A suit for deter ­mination of any question of title relating to such land undisputedly lay in a Civil Court. The relief for injunction could have been granted only after adjudication of the title to the land in the plaintiff's favour. Inasmuch as the defendants were threatening to execute the Sub -Divisional Officer's order, a mere relied for declaration of titles would have been ineffective, and it was accordingly, necessary to pray for the consequential relief of injunc ­tion. The suit could in no sense be said to be not maintainable. Indeed it was authorised by the very provision of Section 122 -B of the U. P. Zamin ­dari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and also the rules framed there under particularly rule 115 (h). Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State could not successfully controvert this position and it has to be held that the view taken by the lower appellate Court on the point about it jurisdiction of the Civil Court to inter ­fere with the Sub -Divisional Officer's order under Section 122 -B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in the present case is erroneous. Nevertheless the learned Standing Counsel urged that the findings of the trial Court on the question of title are wrong and unsustainable on the evidence on the record. This aspect of the matter has not been gone into by the lower appellate Court and sitting on second appeal it will not be possible for this Court to scrutinise the evidence and to examine whether the findings recorded by the trial Court on the question of plaintiff's title and possession and other matters covered by issues Nos. 2, 4 and 5 are correct or not. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment, and decree of the lower appellate Court in civil appeal No. 408 of 1973 of the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur are set aside and the appeal remanded to the District Court for being heard either by the District Judge himself or by any Additional District Judge competent to hear it and to whom it may be assigned by him. The costs shall abide the result. The court -fees paid by the appellant in this Court shall be refunded to him.;