V.G. Oak, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against certain orders passed by revenue Courts under the UP Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act 1949 (UP Act X of 1949.)
(2.) RAM Lal is the Petitioner. Dori Lal and Thakur Das are the principal opposite parties. According to the Petitioner's affidavit, there were consolidation proceedings in their village Rashidpur. Chaks were allotted to parties in the consolidation proceedings, which came to an end. The village was denotified. Subsequently, Dori Lal and Thakur Das, who are opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 in the writ petition, filed an application under Section 12 of Act No. X of 1949 for cancellation of a declaration previously granted in favour of the Petitioner. That application by Dori Lal and Thakur Das was allowed by the Assistant Collector, Sadabad on 31 -12 -58. He directed that the Sanad in Ram Lal's favour should be cancelled. The Court also gave directions for correction of village records accordingly. The Petitioner filed an appeal against the decision of the Asstt. Collector, dated Dec. 31, 1938. The appeal was partly allowed by the Addl. Commissioner, Agra on March 19, 1960. He decided that it was not necessary to cancel the declaration of bhumidhari rights in Ram Lal's favour altogether. It was held that Ram Lal was entitled to a declaration of Bhumi dhari rights with respect to one -third share in the holding. The appeal was decided in those terms. The present writ petition by Ram Lal is directed against those two orders dated Dec. 31, 1958 and March 19, 1960. The main contention of Mr. Swami Dayal appearing for the Petitioner is that, the application by Dori Lal & Thakur Das under Section 12 of Act No. X of 1949 was not maintainable. Mr. Swami Dayal relied upon S. 49 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act. 1953. S. 49 of that Act runs thus; - No person shall institute any suit or other proceeding in any civil or revenue Court with respect to any matter arising out of consolidation proceedings or with respect to any other matter in regard to which a suit or application can be filed under the provisions of this Act.
(3.) IT is difficult to see how the application under Section 12 of Act No. X of 1949 can be said to be a matter arising out of consolidation proceedings. It is the Petitioner's case that consolidation proceedings in this village were over long ago. Dori Lal and Thakur Das did not attempt to reopen consolidation proceedings. All that they urged before the Assistant Collector was that, a certain Sanad was wrongly issued to Ram Lal. This was not a matter arising out of consolidation proceedings. Nor is this a matter, in regard to which a suit or application could be filed under the provisions of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The 1953 Act contains no provision cancellation of a Sanad for Bhumidhari for rights. So the present case is not barred by either of the two parts of S. 49 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.;