S.P.PANDEY, J. - (1.) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal under Section 331 of the UPZA and LR Act preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30-6- 1 995 passed by 1 he learned Addition-al Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi arising out of the judgment and decree dated 7-8-1978 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-Bof the UPZ And LR Act.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiffs, Suraj Prasad and others instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act against the defendants, Lalji and Ors. for declaration over the suit land as detailed at the foot of the plaint. The learned trial Court after com­pleting the requisite trial, dismissed the aforesaid suit on 7-8-1978. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner has upheld the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal on 30-6-1995. Hence this second appeal. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the records on file. For the appellant, it was contended that the suit is not barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act and the order passed by the ACO dated 22-6-1961 during the consolidation operations on the basis of the compromise between the parties has become final as no appeal or revision was preferred against the same; that the subsequent application filed by the respondent, Krishnanand before the SDO under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act for correction of papers and the order passed by the learned SDO, Addi­tional Commissioner, and the Board of Revenue in the aforesaid proceedings were illegal as the entire proceedings initiated under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act were barred by Section 49 of the U.PC.H. Act and the authorities con­cerned had no jurisdiction to pass any order to correct the entry in CH Form 45. In sup­port of his contentions, he has cited case laws reported in 1995 RJ 363, 1980 RD 3(X) (SC), 1970 RD 282and AIR 1996 SC2181. In reply, the learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the entries made in CH Form 23 and 45 have become final as no objections were raised by the appellants during the con­solidation operations and as such the suit is clearly barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act and the aforesaid impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below are quite just and proper which must be sustained.
(3.) I have given my thoughtful con­sideration to the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant records on file. On a close examination of the records, it is evidently clear that the plaintiff-appel­lants have miserably failed to agitate the matter in question before the consolida­tion authorities concerned at the ap­propriate time. Moreover, they could not adduce any cogent and convincing evidence in support of their claims as to when and how they lost an area admeasur­ing .45 acre from their chak. From a bare perusal of the records, it is crystal clear that on the point of title, the matter has been finally Decided during the consolidation operations and all the relevant entries have been finally made in the records con­cerned. As such, I find myself unable to agree with the contentions raised by the Learned Counsel for the appellant.;